RadioBanter - Scorecard on WT Docket 05-235

wrote in
oups.com:

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.

I'm not offended. I just don't beleive that the FCC, or even Ofcom for that
matter, give a hoot about the citizenship of people that post comments.

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.

It's set by Congress and interpreted by the courts. The former have to be
citizens, as do those who elect them. I doubt if judges do, though. Lawyers
certainly don't. It also applies to everyone in the US and has affects on
people even outside the US, like Kenwood and Yaesu for example. The phrase
for all these people is 'interested parties' and that's who the FCC is
looking for comments from, even non-hams!

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.

And your point is what, exactly?

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! :-)