|
Scorecard on WT Docket 05-235
From: on Mon 7 Nov 2005 09:35
wrote: From: on Tues 1 Nov 2005 16:35 wrote: From: on Oct 29, 4:44 am wrote: From: on Thurs, Oct 27 2005 3:41 pm wrote: From: on Tues, Oct 25 2005 2:30 am wrote: From: on Oct 24, 3:39 am Alun L. Palmer wrote: Your methods are faulty. All anti-morse are "faulty." By morseman definition! :-) You're the one "fudging", Len. By counting multiple comments and reply comments from the same person as separate opinions rather than duplicates, you're saying that some people's opinions are worth more than others simply because they wrote more. Morsemen think they know all about radio... :-) What's worse is that you tried to hide that fact, and the effect it has on the 'scorecard'. Tsk, nothing was "hidden" in all those "score card." They are what they are. Joe Speroni hides the fact that the official comment period didn't begin until 31 August. You muddied that clarity by counting some people's opinions multiple times. Tsk, your opinion is faulty. :-) You dislike that. Not at all. Yes, you do. :-) And then the trend went the other way. Like it or not. I kept on reporting the tally, like it or not. You don't have website, though, even though AOL has a homepage for every screen name. Reporting a tally requires a website? Oh, my...! :-) How does your posting it *here* tell the FCC anything, Len? Doesn't matter, Jimmie. I never said it did. The direct communication by citizens with the Commission "tells" them. But not all of it. I saw your anti-Extra diatribe. Some would say it was "petulant" and "whiny"..... Poor baby. Feeling petulant and whiny are you? :-) So are the written tests. If FCC enacts the NPRM, it will take at least a General license for new hams to get *any* HF privileges. Tsk, tsk, Jimmie. WRONG. The FCC doesn't "enact NPRMs." Those are just NOTICES of PROPOSED Rulemaking. That's why they are called what they are. :-) "Enacts" come from Reports and Orders. Long ago I started communications on HF without a single requirement to know or test for morse code and did it LEGALLY. Sure - as part of a *battalion* of military servicepeople caring for a bunch of transmitters. You were trained to do the job, tested along the way, and supervised at every opportunity. You were there? You were in the military? I didn't know that. Transmitters (a "bunch" of THREE DOZEN) was "run" by a COMPANY, Jimmie. [C Company in this case] Better read your books a little closer... :-) The transmitter operation was completely governed by set procedures and by experienced personnel. "Peak the grid and dip the plate." :-) "Set procedure" for tube finals. Same "set procedure" for tube finals today, a half century later... :-) After a (short) while *I* became one of the "experienced personnel," Jimmie. "Three up and one down" on the sleeve. Operating Team Supervisor. E-5. NCO. Oh, and I was NEVER trained to operate high-power transmitters in the Army, Jimmie. My Signal schooling was on microwave radio relay. A Field Radio MOS got trained on high-power transmitters on HF. [you need to read your books carefully] Amateur radio is a completely different thing. FCC recognizes that, even if you don't. Electrons, fields and waves don't differentiate between human discriminations in human ideas of things like human laws. Really. Didn't you learn that at "Dexter?" :-) FCC "recognizes" that they ONLY regulate United States CIVIL radio, Jimmie. They are limited to CIVIL radio by two Acts of Congress of the United States. FCC can recognize other kinds of "civility" too! :-) Tsk, you aren't being civil in here... Nope. I think for myself. I've given my reasons for my support of Morse Code testing in my comments to FCC, and here. "Conditioned thinking" is known by its colloquial name of "brain washing." If your mind wasn't "washed," then it must be dirty. You don't like them, so you attack me and claim nonsense like "conditioned thinking" rather than a simple difference of opinion. Tsk, you aren't being "civil"! :-) You haven't "dropped it", Len. True! Don't plan to, either! :-) You go into detail explaining other people's motivations, so yours are fair game even if you won't discuss them or admit to them. You telling me what to do! Tsk. :-) No, you didn't write that. Read what you actually wrote, Len. I do. Haven't detected any "hacker" trying to post their words under my screen name. :-) I'm not calling people names, Len. You are. How AWFUL! I'm the only one, right? :-) Nobody made ME any "judge," Jimmie. But you act like one here. Fear being laid off? :-) I OBSERVE it. It's apparant to anyone with an open mind. That leaves you out... Tsk, tsk, incivility! You seem to be of a CLOSED mind when it comes to code testing. Not as closed as yours, Len. MORE incivility! :-) Your methods are inaccurate. That's a fact. Tsk, MY tally doesn't go by YOUR "standards." MY tally doesn't go by Joe Speroni's "standards." Sunnuvagun! What have I "done wrong", Len? BWAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. It's clear you tried to skew them the way *you* want them, Len. But the majority still opposed it. You oppose my posting in here. Ergo, you are the majority. A majority of one. Your skewing has been revealed It is a HEINOUS and IMMORAL to act against a morseman! You avoid the question because you know I'm right. You are? I didn't know that... Because one person's opinion should not be counted multiple times. Hey, let's count ALL 20 of those LAW STUDENTS (who don't have any professed desire to get ham licenses and doing some kind of class exercise at University of Tennessee) who got into the official time period of comments on 05-235! Some were FOR, some were AGAINST the NPRM. Do you know which ones, Jimmie? Let's count an instructor at an English Departement of a west coast university who also stated outright she wasn't interested in any amateur radio license yet was against the NPRM! Joe Speroni counts her Comment as "pro-CW!" How about Dwayne Sparks, Jimmie? He Commented (not one of his were Replies to Comments) 13 times "pro-CW." He is an Extra. Jimmie, Joe Speroni's "analysis" does NOT consider what the federal government says is an official comment period and merely counts ALL. HIS "standards" set out to make it absolutely favorable towards radiotelegraphy testing...but he is "okay." He is "okay" because He is a morseman and that's "okay." [cue an old tired Monty Python sketch here...] I'll let Bill the Cat comment: "Pbthbththththth..." :-) [from "Opus" 2] |
Scorecard on WT Docket 05-235
From: on Mon, Nov 7 2005 5:59 pm
wrote: Considering how long you've held onto your Johnson, I'd try not to imagine the state of yours... My E. F. Johnson Viking Messenger still meets manufacturer's specifications. My johnson still works fine. Next question... No wonder you aren't attached... "Attached"? In what way? I don't have a conjoined twin, if that's what you mean. You are NOT married? Are NOT a parent? Considering all the talk about your "classic johnson" that's surprising! All existing amateurs could be affected. By your "classic johnson?" Tsk, tsk! What's "not nice" about stating the facts, Len? Your disdain of the ARS is not a secret. I'm not in favor of the Amateur Radiotelegraphy Society. I'm not in favor of CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS in the amateur radio service. To NOT love an amateur morseman is to "hate ALL amateur radio licensees?" I think not. NPRM 05-143 is solely about the MORSE CODE TEST, Jimmie. Actually not. It's also an R&O, and has lots of policy statements from FCC. BAD MISTAKE, Jimmie. Go stand in the corner. "NPRM" is an acronym for Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. It is just a notice. "R&O" is a familiar term for Report and Order. A Report and Order MAKES a regulation. An NPRM and R&O are NOT the "same." So you had a shorty connected to your compact Johnson. Quite appropriate.... Tsk. You are overly concerned with "johnsons," Jimmie. Is your middle name in "James P. Miccolis" standing for PETER? What *is* your problem, Len? Maybe because I don't have a "classic johnson?" You're misdirecting away from the point about cb. This thread was originally about WT Docket 05-235. That Docket has NO relation to Citizens Band Radio Service. You don't affect me much at all, Len. ...and you don't post a lot in this newsgroup... I appreciate all sorts of classics. Tsk, you and Davie "appreciate" those "classic johnsons" too much... You can keep whatever you want, Len. But I find it odd that you would hold onto your tube-filled Johnson for so long. After all, you're always lecturing us about "change" and "new technology" and all that sort of rot. "Rot?" How is your 1990s "original design" "tube-filled" "state of the art" ham rig doing? Any more "neighbors" come over to gush over your expertise in making it? Did they ever gush over your classic johnson? Many items are routinely referred to by the manufacturer's name. Hams do it all the time when describing their rigs. For example, just considering radio sets, I've owned seven Heathkits, two RMEs, three Nationals, two Hallicrafters, one Gonset, seven Southgates and yes, at least four different Johnsons. Could you ever get any of them to work? Why? You've obviously got the most experience dealing with one of the smallest Johnsons ever produced. Dave and I are more interested in the bigger Johnsons, such as the Valiant (I had one) and the Viking 2 (I had two of those, plus the 122 VFO). Is it hard to beat a classic johnson? Jimmie, go to your remaining classic johnson and turn it on. See if it turns you on. |
Scorecard on WT Docket 05-235
From: "Alun L. Palmer" on Mon 7 Nov 2005 04:03
wrote in From: "Alun L. Palmer" on Sun, Nov 6 2005 9:25 am wrote in news:1130386378.660926.152330 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). So, you are offended that I mentioned "foreigners"? I didn't call you out by name. This newsgroup goes everywhere the Internet goes. The Internet is worldwide now. As a United States CITIZEN I'm concerned about United States law as it applies to United States citizens. Last I looked, United States law was NOT set by foreign citizens. 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. The FCC regulates all civil radio in the United States. That regulatory power is set by two Acts of Congress (laws). Congress itself was established by the Constitution of the United States. Last I looked, NO foreign government had any power to change United States law. 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 is my contention that the FCC Staff and Commissioners know rather more than the basics of United States law and to which country they owe allegiance to...on the job and in their heart. There is no need for me to tell the FCC that they work for the United States. They are well aware of that and no further comment is necessary. So, I've "skewed" my "interpretation" by "mis-categorization" of 2 out of 3703 filings? That is some heinous crime? I've labeled them on *MY* tally as "indeterminate" and thus not affecting *MY* percentages. Both of them were FOR the NPRM. We can't see how Joe Speroni counted those. Did I "skew" my "interpretation" of a west coast English teacher's Comment AGAINST the NPRM even though she said up front that she has no license and is not desiring to get one. Joe Speroni counts her as "pro-CW." I said publicly that I'm NOT posting this "score card" publicly any more. Too many are terribly touchy (a few totally outraged) about it and it offends them, poor dears. 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. No?!? I've been TOLD (on 25 Jan 99 in WT Docket 98-143) by an Amateur Extra that I MUST NOT EVER be allowed to comment on ANY amateur radio regulation! [search for "Robeson" on that date] I have been TOLD by non-military-service non-veterans what the military IS and that I am "wrong" in what I said about that. I have been TOLD by those who got their degrees long ago that human laws somehow override physical laws, therefore amateur radio is "different" than every other radio service. Brian Shoemaker, on a 31 October 2005 filing said outright in his Comment that "the only voice that should be heard on the current issue of rule changes to the HF bands are the users of the bands." Shoemaker is PRO-code, therefore, by the Rules of Engagement in THIS newsgroup (where pro-code rules) his territorial imperative is "correct!" Is it? Joe Speroni's "analysis" on his website is "NOT skewed" according to the local newsgroup Judge of what is "right" and "wrong." Anyone NOT for morse code is "skewed" and "mistaken" and just plain "wrong" in here. They have TOLD us. shrug Oh, wow, all those self-righteous TELLING ME WHAT TO DO! :-) |
Scorecard on WT Docket 05-235
|
Scorecard on WT Docket 05-235
|
Scorecard on WT Docket 05-235
|
Scorecard on WT Docket 05-235
From: on Mon, Nov 7 2005 5:59 pm
wrote: Considering how long you've held onto your Johnson, I'd try not to imagine the state of yours... My E. F. Johnson Viking Messenger still meets manufacturer's specifications. My johnson still works fine. Next question... No wonder you aren't attached... "Attached"? In what way? I don't have a conjoined twin, if that's what you mean. You are NOT married? Are NOT a parent? Considering all the talk about your "classic johnson" that's surprising! All existing amateurs could be affected. By your "classic johnson?" Tsk, tsk! What's "not nice" about stating the facts, Len? Your disdain of the ARS is not a secret. I'm not in favor of the Amateur Radiotelegraphy Society. I'm not in favor of CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS in the amateur radio service. To NOT love an amateur morseman is to "hate ALL amateur radio licensees?" I think not. NPRM 05-143 is solely about the MORSE CODE TEST, Jimmie. Actually not. It's also an R&O, and has lots of policy statements from FCC. BAD MISTAKE, Jimmie. Go stand in the corner. "NPRM" is an acronym for Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. It is just a notice. "R&O" is a familiar term for Report and Order. A Report and Order MAKES a regulation. An NPRM and R&O are NOT the "same." So you had a shorty connected to your compact Johnson. Quite appropriate.... Tsk. You are overly concerned with "johnsons," Jimmie. Is your middle name in "James P. Miccolis" standing for PETER? What *is* your problem, Len? Maybe because I don't have a "classic johnson?" You're misdirecting away from the point about cb. This thread was originally about WT Docket 05-235. That Docket has NO relation to Citizens Band Radio Service. You don't affect me much at all, Len. ...and you don't post a lot in this newsgroup... I appreciate all sorts of classics. Tsk, you and Davie "appreciate" those "classic johnsons" too much... You can keep whatever you want, Len. But I find it odd that you would hold onto your tube-filled Johnson for so long. After all, you're always lecturing us about "change" and "new technology" and all that sort of rot. "Rot?" How is your 1990s "original design" "tube-filled" "state of the art" ham rig doing? Any more "neighbors" come over to gush over your expertise in making it? Did they ever gush over your classic johnson? Many items are routinely referred to by the manufacturer's name. Hams do it all the time when describing their rigs. For example, just considering radio sets, I've owned seven Heathkits, two RMEs, three Nationals, two Hallicrafters, one Gonset, seven Southgates and yes, at least four different Johnsons. Could you ever get any of them to work? Why? You've obviously got the most experience dealing with one of the smallest Johnsons ever produced. Dave and I are more interested in the bigger Johnsons, such as the Valiant (I had one) and the Viking 2 (I had two of those, plus the 122 VFO). Is it hard to beat a classic johnson? Jimmie, go to your remaining classic johnson and turn it on. See if it turns you on. |
Scorecard on WT Docket 05-235
|
Scorecard on WT Docket 05-235
wrote: Bill Sohl wrote: wrote in message oups.com... Bill Sohl wrote: wrote in message ups.com... cut ADA wasn't needed because the FCC had already provided a waiver process. Did code waivers come first, or ADA? I I think the ADA may predate waivers... but that isn't of any importance anyway. I think it is. IMHO anyway. The ADA didn't force anyone to immediately do anything. Most or much of the ADA impact has been with new accomodations. Application of ADA in existing situations has usually been the reult of a complaint by an individual or a group of individuals. Exactly - and *nobody complained*. wrong agian nobody listened to the complaints of americans on the subject I know at least one fellow that did complain It took backdoor diplomacy by a foreign King to get waivers, not advocacy by any US group. disgusting that it took going to Jordan to ask for freedom in the USA , and an absolute disgrace to the USA cut Which is why further discussion on this is a waste of my time. I'll wait to see what the FCC does before continuing this hypothetical. I think it's worthwhile to consider where a path may lead before going that way. when there is not real chance it will go that way cut On 4 of the HF bands, there are parts of the band that are for Extras only. Which clearly is additional operating privileges. But not *different* operating privileges! (I should have said it that way from the beginning!) IOW, what's the difference between operating on, say, 14,030 kHz vs. 14,020 kHz using the same mode and power level? What additional knowledge or skills are needed for the lower frequency that aren't needed for the higher one? It could be claimed that since the Extra written isn't required to use 14,030, why is it an absolute requirement to use 14,020? Particularly for folks who have a really tough time memorizing/understanding all the stuff in the written tests? By allowing waivers *in principle*, the whole quagmire opens up to question all test requirements. no it does not However I will grant you in makes it hardert to sustain each level beyond the first test. the first test is justified legaly by the term of the ITY treaty. each test after that one becomes harder and harder to justify on a legal basis but the waivers were allowed already in principle so that horse has left the barn years ago 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. I doubt it, but for now see no need to discuss or debate the point UNLESS someone actually goes there. Just the opposite - because if they go there, and cite the precedent, what possible argument could be used against them? that the US has had a series of license tied to freq prevlegges granting more prevledge to more learned ops OTOH I agree with you to point the arguement is weak But I support an Ideal of ONE class of license for all and in practice would support (as opposed to merely accepting what is likely to result in the R&O) 2 class at most ( a "Novice" and full prevledges) BTW that is MY position not NCI's and just becuase I am No Coders doesn't mean other nocoders fell eetc..... cut |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:53 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com