wrote in
oups.com:

wrote:
From: on Oct 24, 3:39 am
Alun L. Palmer wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote in
wrote:
On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 16:41:58 -0400, Mike Coslo
wrote:
On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 14:23:24 -0400, Mike Coslo
wrote:
wrote:

no effort to squech it has been made.

Tsk, tsk...LOTS of "squelching" has been ATTEMPTED. :-)

By you and Mark..

Case in point: All these allegations of "honesty" and FALSE
charges of an inordinate number of "mistakes."

By whom?

Nice MISDIRECTION away from the NPRM. :-)

The thread is about your "scorecard", Len. Asking how the
numbers are derived, what rules are used in the derivation,
and who checks your work are right on-subject.

For example, if someone filed 1 comment and 3 reply comments
on the NPRM, did you count them as 1 or 4 or something else?

he has the right to ignore me if
he likes, as do you of course, and I have
the right to tell to shut
up and stoping acting like High Inqusitor
or impling that Len is doing something imporper in reading and
counting as he sees fit

Mark, simply Being Here and Being NOT for morse code
is "improper" and "incorrect!" :-)

How many hunderd question does Jim need to
ask before he reconizes that Len is not required to answer him

Doesn't matter. Jimmie Noserve is a Radio god

"Radio god"?

Looks like an extreme exaggeration. How do we know you
don't exaggerate other things?

in here and can
act/do/write whatever he wants to and that WILL be "correct"
(because that is his opinion and anything against it
is "wrong").

Disagreement with him is "wrong," thus "validating" his false
charges of "mistakes." :-)

Good description of your behavior here, Len.

Your mistakes are well documented. Such as the legality of
amateur operation by hams with expired-but-in-the-grace-period
licenses.

On the contrary, I like Jim because he is rational and polite.

Thanks, Alun!

Jim is always right.

Gosh, Len, so you *can* call me by my name!

He must be because he says so...those
against his opinions are "wrong." :-)

When it comes to one-sided opinions in favor of code testing, he
gets upset and irrational. shrug

He did raise a valid point about citizenship, i.e. it is
irrelevant, but I raised this point myself with Len before and
didn't get an answer.

I thought I answered that. :-)

I'll have to get busy and find out every other government
administrations' Elections so that I can go vote on those
issues...if I don't need to be a citizen there. :-)

Last I saw, United States citizens voted on, expressed
opinions on United States laws, regulations, rules.
As far as
I've seen so far, Title 47 C.F.R. applies ONLY to United
States
citizens on United States soil.

US citizenship is not a requirement for getting an FCC
amateur radio license. Passing the required tests *is* a
requirement.

A comment to FCC is not a vote. Citizenship is not required
to comment. Neither is there an age requirement to comment.

Of course Len has admitted that he has had problems integrating young
people into what he considers 'adult' activities....

FCC doesn't exclude noncitizens, so why should a count of the
comments exclude them? A noncitizen can get an FCC license, but
has to take the same tests as a citizen, so why shouldn't their
comments be counted?

By INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT, the United States allows non- citizens
to be granted United States radio operator licenses.

That's right.

Do NON-citizens vote on United States laws, regulations, rules?

A comment is not a vote. An NPRM is not an election. FCC doesn't have
to act on what the majority of comments want.

Doing a voluntary examination of an on-going WT Docket and
reporting what I found is hardly "telling the FCC or anyone in
here" "what to do."

Who said it was?

The issue is the accuracy of your 'scorecard'.

Tsk, tsk. Since this is a private

It's not private at all. You blab it all over a public forum,
so it's fair game for comment and question by others.

That's what free speech in a public forum is all about, Len.
If you make statements here, others have the right to comment
on them and question their validity.

Is your 'scorecard' a collection of alleged facts, or is it
just your opinion?

all-voluntary "score card," the one doing the READING of ALL
filings is allowed to set the conditions. :-)

Of course.

Those
conditions have been FULLY EXPLAINED in each "score card"
I've posted...since the end of July, 2005.

No, they haven't. For example:

If someone posts multiple comments that are not identical,
are they counted as one comment or more than one?

If a group or club posts a comment with multiple signatures,
does that count as one comment or more than one?

How is it decided what constitutes a "valid address"?

Why is there some kind
of "dispute" NOW rather than in the past two months?

Is there a time limit on questions?

As far as the "Indeterminate" column of my scoring, the notes
explain what was done.

Not completely.

At issue in WT Docket 05-235 is just
whether or not NPRM 05-143 should be made into an R&O or not.
NPRM 05-143 is NOT some comprehensive all-inclusive Remake
of Part 97 as in the "Restructuring" of '98-'99. It is just
about morse code testing, whether it should stay or go...in
USA amateur radio regulations.

The NPRM does not state that comments must be about Morse Code testing
and nothing else.

Back in 1999 you posted reply comments recommending an age requirement
for all classes of amateur license, even though
that NPRM never mentioned anything about an age requirement.

Should your reply comments be called "indeterminate" because
of that?

Other than the non-specific "Indeterminate" opinions, there
are only three others: FOR the NPRM, AGAINST the removal of
code testing, and retention of code testing ONLY for the
Amateur Extra class. Perhaps that is just too difficult to grasp?

Perhaps your explanation is incomplete?

What IS difficult to grasp - by the PCTA - is that the NCTA are no
longer a minority.

That has not been shown to be true.

In fact, many PCTA just cannot
believe that radio hobbyists cannot love, honor, and obey the
cherished Belief that morse code testing is "necessary."

Len has a proven track record of mistakes here, particularly in
the area of FCC regulations, so it's not unreasonable to ask about
how his numbers are compiled and how they are checked.

"Proven track record?!?" :-)

Yes. You've made serious mistakes in your statements about
Part 97. And you've refused to correct or even acknowledge them.

Is that what is called "politeness" and "civility?" In here
I guess so... :-)

It's called stating a fact.

The way to "check" my numbers is to GO AND READ ALL THE
COMMENTS-FILINGS ON WT DOCKET 05-235 AND DO YOUR OWN
TALLIES OF OPINIONS.

You're not the only one reading the comments, Len. And your
numbers don't agree with others' results.

Jimmie has NOT even made ONE filing on WT Docket 05-235.

If someone makes multiple filings on that docket, and they
are not identical, will you count them as one comment or more than
one?

Do "filings" include only comments, or are reply comments and
other materials included in the count?

Is your 'scorecard' only a count of comments, or are reply
comments included too?

Jimmie has NOT stated he has READ a single filing on 05-235.

Who is "Jimmie", Len? Can't be me, because I've read several of
the comments. Reply comments too. And the whole NPRM.

Jimmie has spent a LOT of time and effort trying his best
to obscure and misdirect the NPRM "scorecard" results by
all these "challenges" and FALSE statements about my previous
alleged "inaccuracies."

I've simply asked questions and stated facts. It's a fact that
you have a proven track record of mistakes here. Here's another:
you once stated you had *never* used a certain screen name to post
here, and then it was shown that you had. I think you called
yourself 'Averyfine'...

Hey, it's a neat trick to try and sway public opinion in this
computer-modem kind of communications. Done well enough, constant
repetition of FALSE charges will make some folks believe that a
person is "highly inaccurate." :-)

Is that your methodology here, Len? Perhaps you're counting on nobody
checking your work.

The NPRM proposes to eliminate *all* Morse Code
testing for an amateur license. Someone who supports
the NPRM must, by definition, support the removal
of *all* code testing, not just some of it. Otherwise they are
opposed to the NPRM.

Tsk, tsk, tsk. Nothing in ANY NPRM is so sacrosanct as
to demand absolute obediance to the NOTICE of PROPOSED
RULE MAKING.

There's no A in "obedience", Len. Are you getting worked up over this?


Had Jimmie seen other NPRMs and the
resulting R&Os, he would understand that. Obviously, he has NOT.

I don't know what "Jimmie" has read, but I've read plenty of
NPRMs and the resultinf R&Os.

The detail of whether they support the current level
of Morse Code testing, or whether they support a
reduction but not complete elimination, does not
change the fact that they are opposed to the NPRM as it stands.

SPIN, SPIN, SPIN. :-)

Tsk, the purpose of a COMMENT period is to allow
CITIZENS to make their desires known to their government on a
PROPOSED ruling.

Not just CITZENS, Len - all interested parties. FCC has
not rejected the comments of noncitizens - why chould you?

In fact, one doesn't even have to be a human being to
comment. FCC accepts comments from corporate organizations
as well. They cited the comments of Kenwood back in the R&O
about the 2000 restructuring.

If Kenwood files comments, will you count them or reject them?

Those desires ARE now PUBLIC. 2,641 filings' worth.

Do they include reply comments or just comments in your totals?

Miccolis has NOT read ALL of them,

Are you sure?

hasn't even made his own filing.
I have read ALL of them...including the 19 more for
24 October 2005 (making 2,660 filings) which will be
posted on 25 October (plus any additional the FCC wishes to add).

Does that mean no one can question your scorecard? Why?
Is it somehow sacred and not open to any questions or
comments?

Seems that way.

So...where is the "score card" by James Miccolis?

And...WHO will "check his work?" :-)

It's not about me, Len. It's about *your* 'scorecard'.

Who checks Miccolis' "work" on his bi-monthly "license
number" postings? [he won't say from where he cribs his numbers]

Anyone can check my posted numbers very simply by doing the
math. I've stated the source of those numbers here.

If there's a math mistake I'll correct it. But I don't recall
anyone pointing out such a mistake.

The FCC will have no problem deciding that they have a mandate to
abolish Element 1 based on the comments.

Perhaps - but recall that FCC is not required to follow
the majority opinion. They did not follow majority opinion in 1999
either...

Tsk. Morse lovers are seeing the handwriting on the
wall. Finally. Wow, news flash, morse code testing is NOT favored
by a majority! [sunnuvagun!]

How do you know it's not favored by a majority?

The ARRL represents a distinct MINORITY of all USA amateur radio
licensees. A mere 20%.

How is that number derived?

Yet, on any
other issue, What The ARRL Says is some kind of "truth"
about amateur radio...anyone against that will get all
sorts of nastygram grief from ARRL Believers!!!

More important to the discussion of 'scorecards' is the
accuracy of the count. At present, Len's 'scorecard' is
made up of about 2500 comments that pass some vaguely defined tests
of validity.

"Vaguely defined tests of validity?!?"

Yes.

2,645 filings for the period 15 July 2005 to 22 October 2005.

Miccolis is IN ERROR...it was NOT "2500." Tsk, tsk.

I wrote "about 2500" - which was accurate when it was written.

With such ERRORS, Miccolis is establishing a "PROVEN TRACK
RECORD OF MISTAKES!!!" :-)

Really?

"Vaguely defined?"

Yes.

The Notes in my "score card" postings explain it, well past "vague"
judgements by PCTA Miccolis.

If someone posts multiple comments that are not identical,
are they counted as one comment or more than one?

If a group or club posts a comment with multiple signatures,
does that count as one comment or more than one?

How is it decided what constitutes a "valid address"?

Are reply comments included or just comments?

With a base of 2500 comments, a single comment
represents .04% of the
total, and 25 comments represent 1% of the total.
With the totals being
so close, it would not take a lot of mistakes to change the apparent
majority.

Tsk, tsk, tsk...PCTA Miccolis has NOT CHECKED THE WORK!

How could anyone check your work, Len? You haven't shown it.

Showing the apparent results to four significant figures may
give the illusion of accuracy to some, but in fact there's a pretty
big range of interpretation to those numbers.

Only in the "Indeterminates." Many of THOSE are so vaguely
comprehensible that it would take an extreme favoritsm to
one side or the other to put them in an "un-ambiguous"
category. READ THEM AND SEE.

"Illusion of accuracy?" :-) With over a thousand filings judged
into four categories, four-place accuracy was thought

Thought by whom?

needed to trends, changes, closeness-of-differing-opinions
and so forth. That is insufficient for the highly judgemental
(and rather disturbed by revelations) James Miccolis. He
wants "the work checked" by another PCTA...possibly to show
the "true light of the efficacy and necessity of morse code
testing?"

Are you afraid of having your work checked, Len?

PCTA James Miccolis has NOT made any filing whatsoever as of
midnight, 22 October 2005.

So?

If I make 10 nonidentical comments, will they count as 1 comment or
more than 1?

He has NO indication of READING
ANY of the 2,641 filings (except the first one, maybe) on
WT Docket 05-235. Then he "challenges" me to "show the work"
as if he is some kind of "authority" on what should be posted in
here!

Does that mean no one can question your scorecard? Why?
Is it somehow sacred and not open to any questions or
comments?

Seems that way.

Magnificent performance! [of petulant spite]

By you....;-)

For example, if one person submits multiple comments that are
omewhat different from each other (but all from the same person), are
they all counted, or just one?

That has been EXPLAINED.

No, it hasn't.

Duplicates are put into the Indeterminate
category. There are TWO flagrant violators of that, one
for, one
against the NPRM. Can Miccolis NAME those two? I can.

How can we be sure you caught every single person that filed more than
one comment?

But, I've READ all 2,641 filings made up to midnight, 22
October 2005.

Really? That's nice.

If one person submits comments and reply comments
(but all from the
same person), are they all counted, or just one?

More necro-equine flagellation. :-)

Leads me to believe you're counting reply comments too.
And not checking for dupes.

If a club or organization comments, does that count
as one comment or multiple comments?

Sigh...:-) So far, ONE club has filed (but not
given any list of members).

Only one?
Editor Moseson of CQ has filed...does PCTA Miccolis demand that ALL
SUBSCRIBERS TO CQ be counted also? :-)

Only if ALL SUBSCRIBERS to QST are also counted...

If a single comment has multiple signatures, does it count as one
comment or does the number of signatures come into play?

Which filing by whom and on what date has "multiple signatures?"

You tell me.

Does Miccolis get multiple ligatures squirming around, trying
to find a fresh spot on the dead horse?

So far, Miccolis has NOT CHECKED MY WORK,

Nobody can. You haven't shown it.

probably has NOT READ
ALL of the 2,641 filings to midnight, 22 October, 2005.

"probably"? Aren't you sure? Previously you were sure, now
you're not.

He has
NOT made his OWN filing by that date.

Is a comment a requirement? The deadline isn't till next week.

You can see that depending on how the above questions are
answered, and rules are applied, the results can be far different.

What "rules" were "necessary" to be followed, Miccolis?

Were they "published" prior to 15 July 2005?

Did you "define what should be done" by the end of August, 2005?
[no, you did NOT]

Did you "define what should be done" by the end of September, 2005?
[no, you did NOT]

Does that mean no one can question your scorecard? Why?
Is it somehow sacred and not open to any questions or
comments?

Tsk, Miccolis must have become suddenly aware that there is NO
majority favoring the retention of the morse code test in
the United States' regulations for civil radio, Title 47
C.F.R.,
Part 97! [sunnuvagun!]

I'm just asking some questions, Len.

Miccolis is seeing the "end of ham radio" (as HE knows it)
when things are progressing ever onwards towards elimination the
morse code test! Poor thing...he stays up late on Sunday night,
even into Monday morning to vent his Grief and Upset at that!

I'm just asking some questions, Len. You seem to be very
upset over them.

So we are all just waiting for the other shoe to drop.

Probably.

"Probably?" :-) It's UNAVOIDABLE. It WILL come about.

Crystal ball?

The only question is when.

The official end of Comments on WT Docket 05-235 is 31
October,
2005, a week from now. The official end of Replies to
Comments
is 14 November 2005.

On WT Docket 98-143 the official end of the last extension of
Comments was 15 January 1999. The final R&O
on "Restructuring"
wasn't released until the last week in December, 1999.
That is
roughly 10 months of decision-making...but on a LOT
more issues
than just morse code testing.

So?

James Miccolis wasn't IN the FCC in 1998, 1999, and he isn't
IN the FCC in 2005.

Neither are you, Len - ever.

However, he KNOWS things and anyone who doesn't agree with this
innate knowledge "makes mistakes!"

I'm just asking some questions, Len. You seem to be very
upset over them.

FCC may simply be responding to the fact that if they
don't drop Element 1, the petitions and proposals will continue,
making more work for them, but no more resources.

Tsk, tsk, tsk. If the decisions don't go YOUR way, then you
can renounce the FCC as some sort of meaningless beaurocracy
that doesn't serve the "public need," right? You ARE U.S.
amateur radio, aren't you? [you sure sound like it]

I'm just asking some questions, Len. You seem to be very
upset over them.

The FCC will take its time, make its decisions, the issue an
R&O. They will do so WITHOUT having James Miccolis "check
their work!" However, any decision arrived at WILL be fully
explained in THEIR Report and Order and appropriate
Commentors
noted in references. So far, as of midnight, 22 October 2005
the FCC CANNOT cite any James Miccolis as a referencible
Commentor...he has NOT even submitted any Comments on 05-235 as of
that date!

So?

Jimmie, you can make all the FALSE and
misdirected "questions"
you wish about me. All I do is READ ALL the Comments and
Replies to Comments on 05-235. The OPINIONS on what the FCC should
do in its final R&O come from United States citizens.

Not just citizens.

The FCC is bound by law and reputation to "serve the public
interest." They seem to do a good job of that, despite what the
losers on past decisions snarl about.

You're the one 'snarling'. Len.

I'm just asking some questions. You seem to be very
upset over them.

Okay, you can try more misdirection and multiple postings and you
are going to get the same replies from me.

IOW, nothing of any substance.

That
doesn't affect the final R&O one iota. You've had all
your amateur life to crow about the efficacy of morse code
as a "necessary" part of licensing...and now you are seeing that
all of that will soon be gone.

The test may be gone, but Morse Code use by hams will go on.
For a long time.

You won't be able to
crow much in the future...but you may have to EAT some...

I'm just asking some questions, Len. You seem to be very
upset over them.

Besides - what does all this matter to you? You're not going to
get a license anyway, test or no test.



At least Len finally answered the citizenship question, although I'm not
convinced by his answer.

As it happens (and many of you already know this) I'm not a US citizen
myself. This means that I can't vote in federal elections, although beleive
it or not, voting in local elections is upto local government to decide. In
fact, I think that the states have the power to let aliens vote in federal,
but not presidential elections, but none of them do any longer, although I
understand it was common in pioneering times when few people were citizens.
One city in this state does allow non-citizens to vote, but it's not the
city I live in.

It would be nice to vote, but I am eligible to apply for citizenship at any
time, so this is not a big issue for me. I prefer not to renounce my native
citizenship, even though it would have no legal effect in itself, i.e. the
UK doesn't recognise renunciation.

When it comes to FCC comment procedures, there is no system in place for
checking the citizenship of anyone who posts a comment, and no longer any
restriction on aliens holding a licence, although there once was, but that
was before my time. Hence, if I post a comment it will be counted by the
FCC, if not by Len. OTOH, if people don't post their citizenship (I don't
when commenting to the FCC) Len won't know whether to include them or not
(even though the FCC will). I think this is Jim's point, as it does reflect
on the accuracy of the scorecard, albeit not enough to keep Element 1 from
going West!

73 de Alun, N3KIP, G8VUK

wrote in news:1130386378.660926.152330
@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:

From: on Tues, Oct 25 2005 2:30 am

wrote:
From: on Oct 24, 3:39 am
Alun L. Palmer wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote in
wrote:
On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 16:41:58 -0400, Mike Coslo
wrote:
On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 14:23:24 -0400, Mike Coslo
wrote:


Nice MISDIRECTION away from the NPRM. :-)

The thread is about your "scorecard", Len.

No, it is about A score card, specifically on WT Docket 05-235,
done to provide some insight on the Comments made and the
prevailing opinions of OTHERS out there, as much up to date as
possible for anyone else interested in NPRM 05-143.

The first thread was begun by me on 2 August, 2005, intended as
a quick-look compilation of filings that had begun on 20 July by
individuals. The second thread was begun by me on 2 August 2005,
specifically to show both the original Docket opening filings and
those filed after the Notice in the Federal Register. The third
thread (this one) was begun on 17 October due to all the
gabbling and squabbling about charges of "inaccuracy" by all
those who didn't bother to do their own compilation. shrug

To almost the end of 26 October 2005, there have been 3,055
filings on WT Docket 05-235. Has Miccolis READ them? ALL
of them? I have. I have appended two listings of filings
with my Replies to Comments done at the date those Replies
were filed. Miccolis FAILED to note that had been done; ergo,
Miccolis has READ ALL of the filings in WT Docket 05-235.

Brian Burke has filed on WT Docket 05-235, even Dan Jeswald,
Bill Sohl, and a few others. James P. Miccolis has NOT filed
ANYTHING on WT Docket 05-235 as of 7 PM EDT on 26 October 2005.

Asking how the
numbers are derived, what rules are used in the derivation, and who
checks your work are right on-subject.

But NOT necessary. I include Notes with each posting of the
"score card" which explain the categorization. Those are
comprehensive to those who bother to READ things.

Since this is a private compilation, I do my own "checking"
prior to each posting. Those can be verified by ANYONE who
bothers to READ ALL of the filings in WT Docket 05-235.

For example, if someone filed 1 comment and 3 reply comments on the
NPRM, did you count them as 1 or 4 or something else?

The OPINION expressed in EACH Comment or Reply to Comments
is EVIDENT in their CONTENT. That is self-evident (to
those who are not busy with misdirection of asking stupid
little questions designed to annoy the score-keeper).

James P. Miccolis has NOT posted ANYTHING similar to what
I have done...yet wishes to be some kind of "judge" on
what should be and what should not be. Tsk, tsk.



Your mistakes are well documented. Such as the legality of
amateur operation by hams with expired-but-in-the-grace-period
licenses.

THIS thread is about NPRM 05-143 and the filings in WT
Docket 05-235. If there are "mistakes" in the tabulations,
those can be found by ANYONE who bothers to READ the filings.

So far, the ONLY "mistake" was a juxtaposition of two note
numbers in the new form of the second thread begun on the
first of September. That was pointed out by Bill Sohl in
public, I acknowledged that and correct the juxtaposition.

Neither NPRM 05-143 nor WT Docket 05-235 concern themselves
with any "operation by hams with expired-but-in-the-grace-
period." :-)


Gosh, Len, so you *can* call me by my name!

Your name is James P. Miccolis. You haven't filed anything
in the FCC ECFS since 23 August 2004. It is NOT "Jim."


US citizenship is not a requirement for getting an FCC
amateur radio license. Passing the required tests *is* a requirement.

NPRM 05-143 is a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking by the FCC.
Any Report and Order issued as a RESULT of Comments then
becomes LAW in the form of an FCC Regulation of U.S. civil
radio. Do you understand that, or must it be explained in
voluminous detail to you?

A comment to FCC is not a vote. Citizenship is not required to comment.

Did you fail high school Civics class? The First Amendment
of the United States Constitution guarantees CITIZENS the
right to make comments to their government. United States
citizens...NOT citizens of OTHER countries.

Neither is there an age requirement to comment.

Given the childish behavior of some, especially those spiteful
ones attempting to misdirect a thread showing the day-by-day
change in the filings of WT Docket 05-235, perhaps there
should be. Even more so when those spiteful children have
great difficulty in accepting the prevailing opinions in the
"amateur community."

Of course Len has admitted that he has had problems integrating young
people into what he considers 'adult' activities....

There is a minimum age to serve in the United States military.
I have NO difficulty with that. I HAVE served. Has James P.
Miccolis served his country in that country's military? No, he
has not. Miccolis perceives "problems" on such minimum age
limits, yet has NOT served.

The state of California has a minimum age limit on many things,
drivers licenses for one. I have no problem with those. Miccolis
perceives I have "problems" there? I have not.

There are hundreds of local communities which have very definite
AGE LIMITS in their ordinances and codifications of law, all with
definite moral and ethical purposes to those. I have no "problem"
with them. Miccolis perceives "problems" where none exist.

Miccolis wishes to drag up SEVEN-YEAR-OLD Comments on WT Docket
98-143...which are NOT a part of NPRM 05-143. Why? The only
possible reason is his personal spite and the attempt to mis-
direct this thread into the usual Flame War squabbling.


A comment is not a vote. An NPRM is not an election. FCC doesn't have
to act on what the majority of comments want.

Had Miccolis done HIS OWN COMPILATION on the filings of WT Docket
05-235, he would have found that the majority of those making
Comments since Federal Register Notice date of 31 August are NOT
favoring NPRM 05-143. Miccolis should keep that in mind, if and
when the FCC gets around to making their Report and Order. :-)

Note that Miccolis has often referred to FCC 99-412
("Restructuring")
Report and Order as "not following the majority!" :-)


The issue is the accuracy of your 'scorecard'.

I try to issue those daily. As a service to anyone interested in
the progress of the public comment period on NPRM 05-143. I try to
make them as accurate as possible.

James P. Miccolis hasn't issued any tabulations/compilations on the
filings of WT Docket 05-235. One wonders if he has READ them at
all.

The CHARGES of "inaccuracy" are specious, NOT backed up by any
other tabulations/compilations on WT Docket 05-235.


Tsk, tsk. Since this is a private

It's not private at all.

It is a PRIVATE ENDEAVOR. As in "by myself." It is made "public"
as in public view, as a result of posting.

I can do it by private e-mail as easily. That way it would not
(seemingly) offend you so much that you write the following:

You blab it all over a public forum, so it's fair game for comment and
question by others.

Sigh...you still do NOT understand computer-modem communications.
These newsgroups unrestricted by moderators are ALL open and
public to anyone who has access to a provider or to Google.

That's what free speech in a public forum is all about, Len.

You ABUSE "free speech" by general heckling...apparently because
of personal spite at getting opposite opinions to your mighty and
imperious statements made in public.

If you make statements here, others have the right to comment on them
and question their validity.

Hello? You've just gotten a taste of "rights" right up your
I/O port. :-)

Is your 'scorecard' a collection of alleged facts, or is it just your
opinion?

Neither. It is my honest effort to show the day-by-day
compilation of filings on WT Docket 05-235.

Such a compilation/tabulation can be done by ANYONE having
access to the FCC ECFS or to the FCC Reading Room.

Miccolis has NOT done ANY of his own compilation/tabultion
in order to BACK UP HIS CHARGES OF INACCURACY. Tsk, tsk.


The NPRM does not state that comments must be about Morse Code testing
and nothing else.

NPRM 05-143 is solely about morse code testing, elimination of
test element 1 to be specific. Had you bothered to READ ALL of
filings in WT Docket 05-235 you would have seen some filings
which were NOT EVEN ABOUT THE NPRM! :-) Is the FCC going to
consider those in regards to NPRM 05-143? :-)

Should your reply comments be called "indeterminate" because of that?

You will label my comments anydamnthing you want...that's totally
predictable! :-)

I'd not call your spiteful little misdirections in here as
"indeterminate." INDEFATIGUABLE is more like it... :-)


Perhaps your explanation is incomplete?

Perhaps you ought to grow up and accept the FACT that a very
large group in the amateur community does NOT think like you do
about either morse code or morse code testing! [sunnuvagun!]



Yes. You've made serious mistakes in your statements about
Part 97. And you've refused to correct or even acknowledge them.

Tsk, tsk, tsk...then you should cancel my amateur radio license
then, refuse to give me my amateur paycheck? :-)


It's called stating a fact.

Here's a FACT: James P. Miccolis spending a lot of time late at
night (almost 11:30 PM when his latest missive was launched) in
order to HECKLE a no-code-test-advocate. :-)


You're not the only one reading the comments, Len. And your numbers
don't agree with others' results.

PRESENT THOSE "NUMBERS" then. "Prove" the "inaccuracy."

"Put up or shut up," Jimmie (that's a phrase, not a command).

You've spent days on trying to imply "inaccuracy" on my part,
yet you have NO PROOF out in public. You "babble" in here in
an effort to misdirect everyone's attention. [it isn't
working, Jimmie, get a new knuckle-spanking ruler for the
Nun of the Above]

Jimmie has NOT even made ONE filing on WT Docket 05-235.

James P. Miccolis has made one, either... :-)


Jimmie has NOT stated he has READ a single filing on 05-235.

Who is "Jimmie", Len? Can't be me, because I've read several of the
comments. Reply comments too. And the whole NPRM.

Tsk, tsk, tsk, Nun of the Above, try to go with the flow of
newsgrouping. Don't PRETEND you don't know... :-)


I've simply asked questions and stated facts.

Snide, spiteful heckling is more like it... :-)

It's a fact that
you have a proven track record of mistakes here.

Tsk, tsk, tsk...more uncivil attempts at character assassination.
Keep it up...it worked well for the National Socialist Party of
Germany in the 1930s. :-)

If you try real hard, you might even convince others I have
underarm odor!


Is that your methodology here, Len?

All I'm doing is READING ALL the filings in WT Docket 05-235 and
showing - as honestly as I can, as accurately as I can - the
four categories of opinions therein.

Perhaps you're counting on nobody checking your work.

Doesn't matter. ANYONE can "check my work." All they have to
do is go in and READ ALL of the filings, count them up, tabulate
the results.

ANYONE can go in to the FCC ECFS and "check my totals" posted in
here. Just set the date blocks on the ECFS form and the ECFS
will automatically total ALL of those within that date period!

[new technology applied...you should try some sometime...]


Had Jimmie seen other NPRMs and the
resulting R&Os, he would understand that. Obviously, he has NOT.

I don't know what "Jimmie" has read, but I've read plenty of
NPRMs and the resultinf R&Os.

Jimmie Noserve also pretends to be an expert on military life.
Hasn't served a day, though. The Nun of the Above is busy
looking for knuckles to slap with her ruler. ["give a Nun
an inch and she thinks she's a ruler"]

Hello? You are in a NEWSGROUP. You wish to heckle your
perceived enemies...yet you demand all this "civility" of
"proper names" and other bullsnit. :-)


Not just CITZENS, Len - all interested parties. FCC has not rejected
the comments of noncitizens - why chould you?

Okay, James P. Miccolis, you hop on over to some Australian
place and TELL THEM HOW THEIR LAWS SHOULD BE. You think
you will be "considered," mate? :-)

Jimmie-James, you get yourself a copy of the United States
Constitution and try to UNDERSTAND IT. Especially the
First Amendment.

In fact, one doesn't even have to be a human being to comment.

The ARRL hasn't filed anything on WT Docket 05-235 as of
8 PM EDT, 26 October. Some describe the ARRL as "soul less"
and without substance. :-)

Jimmie-James P. Miccolis of PA has NOT FILED ANYTHING on
WT Docket 05-235 (as of 8 PM EDT, 26 October 2005).


If Kenwood files comments, will you count them or reject them?

Kenwood who? :-)



Does that mean no one can question your scorecard? Why?
Is it somehow sacred and not open to any questions or comments?

I've EXPLAINED my categorizations since my first "score card"
posting on 2 August 2005. See the "Notes" for each one.

Jimmie-James, I can't grab your finger and point it FOR YOU
at the Notes. You HAVE to read them.


It's not about me, Len. It's about *your* 'scorecard'.

Tsk, tsk, Jimmie-James. You are busy, busy, busy making it
YOUR teeny little "judgement at Nuremburg." :-)


Who checks Miccolis' "work" on his bi-monthly "license
number" postings? [he won't say from where he cribs his numbers]

Anyone can check my posted numbers very simply by doing the math. I've
stated the source of those numbers here.

If anyone with newsgroup access can access them, WHY do
you post them here AS IF you "derived them?" :-)


The ARRL represents a distinct MINORITY of all USA amateur radio
licensees. A mere 20%.

How is that number derived?

That's been EXPLAINED to you in public several times!

Go to the QST advertising page at the ARRL site, observe
the "Publisher's Sworn Statement" that appears there twice
a year. Compare that to the total number of USA amateur
radio licensees at about the same time.

That's so terribly EASY to do...even for a double-degree.

:-)


How could anyone check your work, Len? You haven't shown it.

Two tabulations have been appended to two Replies to Comments.
Those are in PUBLIC VIEW at the FCC ECFS under WT Docket 05-235.

ANYONE can go to the ECFS and READ ALL the filings and do their
own compilations/tabulations. Really. It should be EASY for
any Amateur Extra with two degrees. :-)

By the way, "filings" refer to each document as listed in the
Search Results for any ECFS listing. That includes some filings
which have nothing at all to do with NPRM 05-143 or even the
amateur radio regulations! [sunnuvagun!] Another one is
completely blank. I've seen it. Do you know at which date it
was filed? You would if you had READ ALL of them.


Are you afraid of having your work checked, Len?

Not at all. Feel free to "check it" by READING ALL filings. :-)


If I make 10 nonidentical comments, will they count as 1 comment or
more than 1?

So...MAKE THEM! :-)

James P. Miccolis has NOT filed anything with the ECFS since
August of last year. ["put your money where your mouth is"]



Leads me to believe you're counting reply comments too.
And not checking for dupes.

Speaking of "dupes," why are you trying to DUPE everyone into
thinking I'm "always in error?" :-)

Are you so ****ed off at certain posters in here you stay up
until nearly midnight to post nastygrams? :-)

Go ahead, READ ALL of the filings in WT Docket 05-235 and do
your own compilations/tabulations. Check it out.

So far, Miccolis has NOT CHECKED MY WORK,

Nobody can. You haven't shown it.

Yes I have. It's IN the ECFS in two different Replies to
Comments. You just haven't seen it yet. :-)

Want to check my numbers out for totals? Easy to do with the
FCC ECFS and proper use of the date blocks. ECFS does the
totals for that period for you. Tsk, tsk, tsk.


Is a comment a requirement? The deadline isn't till next week.

NOBODY "requires" you to do anything, Jimmie-James. :-)

The deadline (official) for WT Docket 05-235 Comments is
31 October 2005. The deadline (official) for Replies to
Comments is 14 November 2005. Both dates are Mondays (in
case you can't do a calendar in your head).

So far, James P. Miccolis has NOT filed anything in WT
Docket 05-235. But, he has been busy, busy, busy baring
his spite in here, asking dumb questions about things which
have already been EXPLAINED to him in each "score card"
posting I've made. :-)


I'm just asking some questions, Len.

Ho, ho, ho...and the moon is made of green cheese... :-)



James Miccolis wasn't IN the FCC in 1998, 1999, and he isn't
IN the FCC in 2005.

Neither are you, Len - ever.

I don't have to be, Jimmie-James...not to exercise my First
Amendment Rights. :-)


I'm just asking some questions, Len.

No, you are "having fun" trying your spiteful little worst to
HECKLE. :-)


I'm just asking some questions, Len.

No, you are "having fun" trying your spiteful little worst to
HECKLE. :-)


You're the one 'snarling'. Len.

Nah. I'm just "answering your questions!" :-)

I'm just asking some questions.

No, you are "having fun" trying your spiteful little worst to
HECKLE. :-)


The test may be gone, but Morse Code use by hams will go on.
For a long time.

ERROR! MISTAKE! The code test is STILL there! :-)

That's about the 5th ERROR you've made in your one heckle-gram.

You are building up a fine "track record for mistakes!" :-)


I'm just asking some questions, Len.

No, you are "having fun" trying your spiteful little worst to
HECKLE. :-)

Besides - what does all this matter to you? You're not going to get a
license anyway, test or no test.

Tsk, tsk, tsk...are you FORBIDDING my getting an amateur radio
license? That's not NICE, Jimmie-James.

I thought you said "all I'm doing is asking questions?"

If so, why do you say such a NOT-nice thing at the end of your
posting?

Have you been taking testosterone supplements and studying the
newsgroup conduct of Dudly the Imposter? :-)

Or are you tied down on the track in the tunnel and seeing a
bright light coming towards you...and suddenly realizing it IS
a locomotive? :-)





Len, I'm not a US citizen. The FCC doesn't ask for comments only from
citizens. If they did I would respect that and not post any, beleive it or
not, but they don't, so I do. They also have no means of checking. Plus I
hold an FCC licence and live in the USA, and last of all, didn't attend a
high school civics class here, ROTFL!

"Alun L. Palmer" wrote in message
...
"Usenet Central" wrote in
link.net:


[snip]


It's only an even race if you count those who want to retain a code test
for Extra only as being in the anti camp. I guarantee that the FCC will be
able to think of no reason to retain it only for Extras. In your dreams,
maybe.

The same thing could be said about any topic that isn't rules, good
operating practice, electrical safety or RF safety. A single license class
and single test would suffice to easily cover those three areas. Afterall,
whether or not the licensee knows how to detect or fix a problem does not
let him get out of following the rules and being responsible for his
operation.

However, the FCC continues to follow the concept that people need motivation
beyond just personal curiosity to pursue the "self training" part of the
basis and purpose. Code is as logical a choice as any other topic.

But I agree that the FCC will decide to drop code entirely if they choose to
move forward.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

On 6 Nov 2005 17:57:57 +0100, "Alun L. Palmer"
wrote:

"Usenet Central" wrote in
hlink.net:

"Alun L. Palmer" wrote in message
.. .

: Any way you look at it though, more than half the comments are in
: favour of the NPRM and less than a third against,

Not in fact is it ANY WAY (every way) you look at it. If Lenards
tally is accurate, your issue seems almost exactly an even race since
the official Federal Register publication of the NRPM with 50.41% in
favor or dropping Morse and 49.59% in sympathy to retain at least some
Morse examination. Based on your presidents election experience you
should exam for perhaps hanging chads in some preceints in Florida.

BGO


--
"I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord,
make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it."
- Voltaire





It's only an even race if you count those who want to retain a code test
for Extra only as being in the anti camp. I guarantee that the FCC will be
able to think of no reason to retain it only for Extras. In your dreams,
maybe.

the FCC has already stated same in NPRM

_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

"Alun L. Palmer" wrote in message
.. .
----CLIPPED ABOUT 500 LINES---


Len, I'm not a US citizen. The FCC doesn't ask for comments only from
citizens. If they did I would respect that and not post any, beleive it or
not, but they don't, so I do. They also have no means of checking. Plus I
hold an FCC licence and live in the USA, and last of all, didn't attend a
high school civics class here, ROTFL!

JESUS H CHRIST ON A UNICYCLE --- LEARN TO TRIM BEFORE YOU POST !!!!!

From: Alun L. Palmer on Nov 6, 8:57 am

"Usenet Central" wrote in
"Alun L. Palmer" wrote in message


: Any way you look at it though, more than half the comments are in
: favour of the NPRM and less than a third against,

Not in fact is it ANY WAY (every way) you look at it. If Lenards
tally is accurate, your issue seems almost exactly an even race since
the official Federal Register publication of the NRPM with 50.41% in
favor or dropping Morse and 49.59% in sympathy to retain at least some
Morse examination. Based on your presidents election experience you
should exam for perhaps hanging chads in some preceints in Florida.

BGO [probably Barnabus Grumwich Overbite]


It's only an even race if you count those who want to retain a code test
for Extra only as being in the anti camp. I guarantee that the FCC will be
able to think of no reason to retain it only for Extras. In your dreams,
maybe.

Speaking of paradoxes, the code test for extra people allow
the "lesser classes" to be free of federal code testing for a
license. They are the classic mugwumps sitting astride the
code-test-fence, one foot on each side.

So, which way to count them? :-)

We can all go to AH0A.ORG and use Speroni's "unbiased" (Ha!)
lumping of the code-test-only-for-extras comments as being
Absolutely FOR CW! [no red strike-outs on THOSE icons!]

Of course, Joe Speroni is an unabashed morseman since way back.
He also had a couple Petitions DENIED by the FCC. shrug

Jimmie say Speroni is MORE ACCURATE. He is a morseman, ergo,
he is "accurate." shrug wink, wink... :-)

My analysis put the code-test-only-for-extras in a separate
category, neither for nor against the NPRM. Readers will
have to decide for themselves how to "rate" them.

What the Commission will actually DO in the future is up to
them. Some poor guy/gal or small group there has got a
whale of an analysis task to wade through nearly 3700 filings
after 14 November 2005 and try to get a feeling of what the
"public" wants. That's going to take quite a while, I'd say
more than the 10+ months between 15 Jan 99 and late December
1999 on WT Docket 98-143 for Restructuring. 98-143 had no
more than about 2200 filings between official start and end
times of Comments/Replies.

FCC once said it wanted a "consensus" on opinions in amateur
radio. It should be blatantly obvious that there is NO such
"consensus" with regard to WT Docket 05-235 and NPRM 05-143.

Nitpickers can make all the "finger-pointing" they want about
"illusionary four decimal place percentages" but the opinions
filed so far have a damn close near-even split betweeen For
and Against.

Whichever way the final R&O goes, we've all seen a part of
history in the making in regards to U.S. amateur radio.
Democracy in action, visible on the FCC ECFS! Good thing!

From: "Alun L. Palmer" on Sun, Nov 6 2005 9:25 am



wrote in news:1130386378.660926.152330
From: on Tues, Oct 25 2005 2:30 am
wrote:
From: on Oct 24, 3:39 am
Alun L. Palmer wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote in
wrote:
On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 16:41:58 -0400, Mike Coslo
wrote:
On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 14:23:24 -0400, Mike Coslo
wrote:


Nice MISDIRECTION away from the NPRM. :-)

big snip so as not to offend W2DNE...:-)

Len, I'm not a US citizen. The FCC doesn't ask for comments only from
citizens. If they did I would respect that and not post any, beleive it or
not, but they don't, so I do. They also have no means of checking. Plus I
hold an FCC licence and live in the USA, and last of all, didn't attend a
high school civics class here, ROTFL!

Alun, my posting to my severest critic (Jimmie) did not involve
your residency. However, it might be worth it to point out a
few things about Internet access and basic U.S. law.

While the government of the United States is now heavily
connected to the Internet and, if an agency makes input to
them public via that same Internet, it does NOT mean that
the Constitution of United States has been "changed" or
overthrown...so that "all" can "decide" on U.S. law.

The FCC "permits" non-resident input to the ECFS only because
it has not installed an elaborate system of locking out those
who are foreign residents (by the address blocks required to
enter an electronic comment) or those who are foreign nationals.
Since U.S. citizens living abroad have an easy and convenient
communications avenue through the Internet, it is advantageous
to NOT have such a lock-out sub-program for them.

Mention of a foreign citizen having a "RECIPROCAL" U.S.
amateur radio license does NOT mean those who have it are
somehow "U.S. citizens" elligible for all the rights of the
U.S. Constitution guaranteed to citizens. That is NOT in
the Communications Act of 1934 nor the Telecommunications Act
of 1996 nor the Radio Regulations of the ITU-R. Those two
Acts were created as Legislation by the Congress of the
United States (which itself was created by the U.S.
Constitution).

That everyone with access to the FCC ECFS can SEE each
filing there does not mean the FCC will CONSIDER each one
as representing "the public" (meaning the citizens of the
United States). As is understood, the FCC need only
LEGALLY CONSIDER those filings which were done in the
legally-posted notice in the Federal Register...which did
not happen until 31 August 2005 despite the first non-
government filing on WT Docket 05-235 occuring on 20 July
2005. By observation and count, OVER HALF of the filings
on that Docket (so far, official end of Replies to
Comments is 14 November, Comment period was officially
up on 31 October) were done BEFORE they were legally open
and official! [did Joe Speroni bother with that "detail"?]

Comment of any kind to the FCC is OPEN to anyone because
our mail and communications avenues are quite open to
all. BUT, the FCC is obliged - by law - to consider "the
public" in DETERMINING civil radio regulations' DECISIONS.
What "the public" is to the FCC is a legal nicety handled
better by those who are legal specialists. Phil Kane, an
attorney specializing in communications law and former
regular in here, might comment on that...or might not.

Would the United Kingdom hold U.S. citizens' comments about
THEIR laws in the same regard as a UK citizen? Would they
DECIDE new laws and regulations on the basis of such
foreign input? I don't think so.

WT Docket 05-235 is NOT a "voting booth." There is NO VOTE
on NPRM 05-143. We can communicate with the FCC openly
(as long as they permit that) but, in the end, the DECISIONS
on amateur radio regulations are THEIRS. That I happened to
use percentages in my tally or that Joe Speroni later used
percentages in his tally, is just a convenience is seeing
who was for what. Whatever method the FCC actually uses
to REACH a decision on making a Report and Order is up to
THEM.

Don't get your legal briefs in a bind. California has a
Special Election on Tuesday. Do you consider that legal
residents NOT of California (population somewhere around
33 million) have "equal right" to VOTE - and thus DECIDE -
on several issues in that election? I don't think so.
The state of California doesn't think so.

For further legal questions on the admissability of written
communications to the United States government, please
consult with the self-styled lawmaster in here, James P.
Miccolis. He "has all the answers." Oyez, oyez!

wrote in
oups.com:

From: "Alun L. Palmer" on Sun, Nov 6 2005 9:25 am



wrote in news:1130386378.660926.152330
snip

Alun, my posting to my severest critic (Jimmie) did not involve
your residency. However, it might be worth it to point out a
few things about Internet access and basic U.S. law.

I am a US resident. I have a green card (which is actually pink).


While the government of the United States is now heavily
connected to the Internet and, if an agency makes input to
them public via that same Internet, it does NOT mean that
the Constitution of United States has been "changed" or
overthrown...so that "all" can "decide" on U.S. law.

The FCC "permits" non-resident input to the ECFS only because
it has not installed an elaborate system of locking out those
who are foreign residents (by the address blocks required to
enter an electronic comment) or those who are foreign nationals.
Since U.S. citizens living abroad have an easy and convenient
communications avenue through the Internet, it is advantageous
to NOT have such a lock-out sub-program for them.

Mention of a foreign citizen having a "RECIPROCAL" U.S.
amateur radio license does NOT mean those who have it are
somehow "U.S. citizens" elligible for all the rights of the
U.S. Constitution guaranteed to citizens. That is NOT in
the Communications Act of 1934 nor the Telecommunications Act
of 1996 nor the Radio Regulations of the ITU-R. Those two
Acts were created as Legislation by the Congress of the
United States (which itself was created by the U.S.
Constitution).


This shows how little you know about the current version of part 97.
Reciprocal licences (Form 610-A) are no longer issued. Anyone from a
country with a reciprocal agreement simply operates in the US under their
foreign licence, with an appropriate prefix. Also, anyone except a
representative of a foreign government can obtain a regular US licence by
taking the same tests as anyone else.

That everyone with access to the FCC ECFS can SEE each
filing there does not mean the FCC will CONSIDER each one
as representing "the public" (meaning the citizens of the
United States). As is understood, the FCC need only
LEGALLY CONSIDER those filings which were done in the
legally-posted notice in the Federal Register...which did
not happen until 31 August 2005 despite the first non-
government filing on WT Docket 05-235 occuring on 20 July
2005. By observation and count, OVER HALF of the filings
on that Docket (so far, official end of Replies to
Comments is 14 November, Comment period was officially
up on 31 October) were done BEFORE they were legally open
and official! [did Joe Speroni bother with that "detail"?]

Comment of any kind to the FCC is OPEN to anyone because
our mail and communications avenues are quite open to
all. BUT, the FCC is obliged - by law - to consider "the
public" in DETERMINING civil radio regulations' DECISIONS.
What "the public" is to the FCC is a legal nicety handled
better by those who are legal specialists. Phil Kane, an
attorney specializing in communications law and former
regular in here, might comment on that...or might not.

Would the United Kingdom hold U.S. citizens' comments about
THEIR laws in the same regard as a UK citizen? Would they
DECIDE new laws and regulations on the basis of such
foreign input? I don't think so.

If someone entered a comment using their UK call it would likely not even
cross the minds of the Ofcom staff whether they were a British citizen,
which is the mirror image of the situation here.


WT Docket 05-235 is NOT a "voting booth." There is NO VOTE
on NPRM 05-143. We can communicate with the FCC openly
(as long as they permit that) but, in the end, the DECISIONS
on amateur radio regulations are THEIRS. That I happened to
use percentages in my tally or that Joe Speroni later used
percentages in his tally, is just a convenience is seeing
who was for what. Whatever method the FCC actually uses
to REACH a decision on making a Report and Order is up to
THEM.

Don't get your legal briefs in a bind. California has a
Special Election on Tuesday. Do you consider that legal
residents NOT of California (population somewhere around
33 million) have "equal right" to VOTE - and thus DECIDE -
on several issues in that election? I don't think so.
The state of California doesn't think so.

For further legal questions on the admissability of written
communications to the United States government, please
consult with the self-styled lawmaster in here, James P.
Miccolis. He "has all the answers." Oyez, oyez!





The point is not whether comments by aliens have to be considered by the
FCC as a matter of law. Doubtless you are right in pointing out that they
don't. However, my impression is that the FCC neither knows nor cares about
the citizenship of those who post comments. If you think they should, and
there is certainly a case for that, then you should tell them, instead of
skewing your interpretation of the comments.

It would be interesting to group the comments as follows:-

1) US citizens who hold a ham licence and reside in the US
2) US citizens who aren't hams and reside in the US
3) Aliens who have an FCC ham licence and reside in the US
3) US citizens who are hams but live outside the US
4) Aliens who have an FCC ham licence and live overseas
5) None of the above

However, the FCC has no capability to divide up the responses except by
whether or not they have an FCC licence, which arguably they shouldn't even
do, as responses from non-hams like you ought to be considered. I suspect
most comments fall in group (1), but these are not the only ones that will
be considered.

Bill Sohl wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
The trend is and has been towards ending code.

Ending code or code *testing*?

Ending code testing.

Whew!

Nothing has changed to alter that general opinion.

Doesn't mean it's a good thing.

IYHO

Of course.

Inactivity in response to the treatty change by the FCC
can certainly be chalked up to digestion of the host
of petitions filed after WRC and the ultimate
issuance of NPRM 98-235 which is now pending.

Maybe - but if there really was a precedent, FCC could
cite it, but they haven't.

IF (let's be hypothetical)

Sure!

the FCC did retain code for
Extra, then the American Disabilities Act (ADA) will
surely be raised by someone who need only point
to the use of waivers previously and no court in
this country would rule against such a clain.

IANAL, but was ADA ever successfully cited before
against an FCC decision? An amateur license isn't
a right - only access to the tests for one is.

ADA wasn't needed because the FCC had already
provided a waiver process.

Did code waivers come first, or ADA?

Waivers of any kind are a real quagmire because they
say the waivered test isn't really necessary for the
license. What's to prevent someone for demanding a
waiver of the Extra *written* test?

Anyone can demand anything.

Of course.

But there's as much reason to use ADA against the
Extra written as their is to use it against an "Extras
only" code test.

On your first statement
regarding waivers being a quagmire...I agree and
that's exactly why the FCC isn't going to retain
any code testing.

Probably right!

That's a path that FCC just won't go down.

Probably not.

PLEASE explain on what legal or rational basis the
FCC could argue to avoid a waiver policy if code
was only retained for Extra.

Several:

First off, I don't think ADA has ever been successfully
cited against FCC regulations

So? It hasn't been needed on any FCC basis yet.

Or maybe it doesn't apply.

Second, an amateur radio license isn't a commercial
thing, so it's not like someone is denied a job or similar.

ADA is not simply about jobs...it is about "access"
on a broad basis.

Which is up to interpretation. "Access" can be
interpreted to mean being allowed to take the
test, not being guaranteed a license.

Third, Extra does not give any more power, modes,
bands or other operating privileges *except* a little
more frequency spectrum.

That's a contradictory statement. You say
there's no additional privileges
and then you note that there is.

Read it again! I wrote there are no additional
operating (meaning on-the-air) privs *except* a bit
more spectrum.

There's also the vanity
call selection and the ability to VE other Extras, but
that's about it.

Ditto my last.

Let me try another way...

What does upgrading to Extra get for a General class licensee?

There's the ability to VE all exams including Extra.

There's the really spiffy callsigns.

But Generals have access to all the same bands as Extras. All the
same modes, too, and the same power level.

On 4 of the HF bands, there are parts of the band that
are for Extras only.

The ADA argument could be brought that all that additional theory in
the
Extra written isn't an absolute requirement because it's not directly
related
to the privileges gained.

Fourth and most important, there's no absolute right
to an amateur radio license. It's a privilege - only
access to the tests is a right.

I think any good ADA attorney would argue otherwise.

But would they win?

As an analogy, consider the national parks. There
are places where access to the park by motor
vehicle is not allowed. Does ADA require that
all parts of all parks be accessible by motor vehicle
because some people can't walk to them?

ADA calls for reasonable accomodation where it can be done.
Your national park analogy doesn't apply.

I think it does. Paved paths could be provided, and small motor
vehicles.

Point is, that's not done because, in those parts of the national
parks, access by
everyone is deemed secondary to preserving the wild state of
the park.

One simple solution is the "Canadian compromise": Keep
code testing but change how it is scored. One method is
to change the requirement for Element 3 (General written)
to the following:

Element 3 can be passed by getting an ~85% grade on the
35 written questions *or* a ~75% grade and a passing mark
on the code test.

That way there's no "lowering of standards" yet the Morse Code
test is not a mandatory pass-fail standalone test any more.

I personally don't believe the Canadian compromise
would pass ADA requirements.

I do. In fact I think it would solve a lot of problems.

We clearly differ in opinion then.

I'm wondering how the options given above would not meet ADA. The
two grading methods would be open to everyone.

What would be the problem?

73 de Jim, N2EY

On 6 Nov 2005 19:22:50 -0800, wrote:

Bill Sohl wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
The trend is and has been towards ending code.

Ending code or code *testing*?
cut

the FCC did retain code for
Extra, then the American Disabilities Act (ADA) will
surely be raised by someone who need only point
to the use of waivers previously and no court in
this country would rule against such a clain.

IANAL, but was ADA ever successfully cited before
against an FCC decision? An amateur license isn't
a right - only access to the tests for one is.

ADA wasn't needed because the FCC had already
provided a waiver process.

Did code waivers come first, or ADA?

does not matter

the ADA is here now

Waivers of any kind are a real quagmire because they
say the waivered test isn't really necessary for the
license. What's to prevent someone for demanding a
waiver of the Extra *written* test?

Anyone can demand anything.

Of course.

But there's as much reason to use ADA against the
Extra written as their is to use it against an "Extras
only" code test.

no there is not

you simply don't understand the ADA

On your first statement
regarding waivers being a quagmire...I agree and
that's exactly why the FCC isn't going to retain
any code testing.

Probably right!

That's a path that FCC just won't go down.

Probably not.

PLEASE explain on what legal or rational basis the
FCC could argue to avoid a waiver policy if code
was only retained for Extra.

Several:

First off, I don't think ADA has ever been successfully
cited against FCC regulations

So? It hasn't been needed on any FCC basis yet.

Or maybe it doesn't apply.

it would apply the same to the FCC as the rest of the govt
enough
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account