|
Scorecard on WT Docket 05-235
K4YZ wrote: wrote: wrote: From: on Oct 24, 3:39 am Lot's of Snippage..... 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? And you expect Lennie to honestly answer this...WHY...?!?! a better question is why does Jim expect Len to answer him at all after all if he did you'd just imply he was lying as you just implied he would not answer honestly More snippage.... Of course Len has admitted that he has had problems integrating young people into what he considers 'adult' activities.... I imagine that Lennie's integrated a LOT of young people into his 'adult' activities.... now you choose to imply Len is a Pedophile showing you as a realy sick person Stevie cut There's no A in "obedience", Len. Are you getting worked up over this? Must be, Jim! You know he ALWAYS says I am "getting mad" if there's a typo...That it's "anger" manifested in typing booboos. you do that with sort of **** with me why should len or anyone else do so with you And we all KNOW that Lennie A L W A Y S follows his own "rules". More stuff on the floor... BTW By your complaints about my cuts you are Censoring Jim cut 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. Ooooooooooh! Lennie used a MEDICAL word to refer to a radio issue! where? cut Steve, K4YZ |
Scorecard on WT Docket 05-235
Scorecard in the NCTA v. PCTA Amateur Opinions on NPRM 05-143:
As of 24 Oct 05, WT Docket 05-235 Comments on Test Element 1 Elimination/Retention tabulation: ALL to Date Since FR Notice -------------- --------------- Grand Total 2672 696 Indeterminate (note 1) 174 63 Value for Percentages 2498 633 Against NPRM (note 2) 756 [30.26%] 201 [31.75%] For NPRM (note 3) 1354 [54.70%] 318 [50.24%] Test Extra Only (note 4) 388 [15.53%] 114 [18.01%] This tabulation in agreement with FCC ECFS as of 8 PM EDT 25 Oct 05. Notes: Notice of NPRM 05-143 appeared in Federal Register for 31 August and established official end of Comments as 31 October 2005 and official end of Replies to Comments as 14 November 2005. The left column indicates totals for ALL dates. Right column indicates all totals beginning 31 August 2005 to day of this scorecard. It is unknown whether or not the FCC will consider Comments entered prior to 31 August 2005, hence the two column format used here. Fixed-font spacing used throughout. 1. Includes duplicate postings from same individual, "joke" or "test" entries which do not have a valid address, or polemicizing a personal pet peeve which has nothing to do with the NPRM, individuals not understanding the scope and purpose of the NPRM, one foreign citizen submission, and six who were commenting on another matter having nothing to do with amateur radio regulations. 2. Includes only those who are whole-heartedly AGAINST the NPRM and against dropping any code testing. 3. Includes only those who are whole-heartedly FOR the NPRM and the abolition of the morse code test. NPRM itself (first docket document on 15 July) is counted as a "for." 4. These are "in-betweeners" who wish to retain the code test for the "highest" class (Extra) but will accept eliminating the code test for other classes. Percentages are calculated from Grand Totals less Indeterminates. Stay tuned...the future of U.S. amateur radio is being made, like it or not. |
Quote:
The Man in the Maze QRV at Baboquivari Peak, AZ |
Scorecard on WT Docket 05-235
On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 02:22:38 +0000, Iitoi
wrote: K4YZ Wrote: And those rules apply to NON-US citizens on FOREIGN soil. Any person holding an American Amateur license must operate thier station in accordance with Part 97 when exercising the privileges of their US license. Ya got that WRONG! FCC rules apply on US soil. Foreign rules apply on foreign soil. At best you might get some reciprocal privs, but those privs are under the rules of the soil you stand on. don't you know Stevie is Mighty Macho Morseman and is never wrong The Man in the Maze QRV at Baboquivari Peak, AZ _________________________________________ Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server More than 140,000 groups Unlimited download http://www.usenetzone.com to open account |
Scorecard on WT Docket 05-235
wrote: Scorecard in the NCTA v. PCTA Amateur Opinions on NPRM 05-143: As of 24 Oct 05, WT Docket 05-235 Comments on Test Element 1 Elimination/Retention tabulation: ALL to Date Since FR Notice -------------- --------------- Grand Total 2672 696 Indeterminate (note 1) 174 63 Value for Percentages 2498 633 Against NPRM (note 2) 756 [30.26%] 201 [31.75%] For NPRM (note 3) 1354 [54.70%] 318 [50.24%] Test Extra Only (note 4) 388 [15.53%] 114 [18.01%] This tabulation in agreement with FCC ECFS as of 8 PM EDT 25 Oct 05. Notes: Notice of NPRM 05-143 appeared in Federal Register for 31 August and established official end of Comments as 31 October 2005 and official end of Replies to Comments as 14 November 2005. The left column indicates totals for ALL dates. Right column indicates all totals beginning 31 August 2005 to day of this scorecard. It is unknown whether or not the FCC will consider Comments entered prior to 31 August 2005, hence the two column format used here. Fixed-font spacing used throughout. 1. Includes duplicate postings from same individual, "joke" or "test" entries which do not have a valid address, or polemicizing a personal pet peeve which has nothing to do with the NPRM, individuals not understanding the scope and purpose of the NPRM, one foreign citizen submission, and six who were commenting on another matter having nothing to do with amateur radio regulations. 2. Includes only those who are whole-heartedly AGAINST the NPRM and against dropping any code testing. 3. Includes only those who are whole-heartedly FOR the NPRM and the abolition of the morse code test. NPRM itself (first docket document on 15 July) is counted as a "for." 4. These are "in-betweeners" who wish to retain the code test for the "highest" class (Extra) but will accept eliminating the code test for other classes. Percentages are calculated from Grand Totals less Indeterminates. Stay tuned...the future of U.S. amateur radio is being made, like it or not. Len, add another to the "For NPRM" column. bb |
]Scorecard in the NCTA v. PCTA Amateur Opinions on NPRM 05-143:
As of 24 Oct 05, WT Docket 05-235 Comments on Test Element 1 Elimination/Retention tabulation: ALL to Date Since FR Notice -------------- --------------- Grand Total 2672 696 Indeterminate (note 1) 174 63 Value for Percentages 2498 633 Against NPRM (note 2) 756 [30.26%] 201 [31.75%] For NPRM (note 3) 1354 [54.70%] 318 [50.24%] Test Extra Only (note 4) 388 [15.53%] 114 [18.01%] This tabulation in agreement with FCC ECFS as of 8 PM EDT 25 Oct 05. [quote] Since the opening of the official comment period, this tally says 49.76% wish to retain some code test, 50.24% are opposed to any code test. Looks like we'll require code test for every second applicant. OK, Marines, line up and count off by two's. The Man in the Maze QRV at Baboquivari Peak, AZ |
Scorecard on WT Docket 05-235
Iitoi wrote: K4YZ Wrote: And those rules apply to NON-US citizens on FOREIGN soil. Any person holding an American Amateur license must operate thier station in accordance with Part 97 when exercising the privileges of their US license. Ya got that WRONG! Nope. FCC rules apply on US soil. Foreign rules apply on foreign soil. At best you might get some reciprocal privs, but those privs are under the rules of the soil you stand on. If you are,say, a citizen of the Republic of the Philippines, operating with your US Amateur call of KZ5ZZZ/DU, you must still observe US laws while doing so. If, while identifying as such, you were jamming others, operating contrary to your license privileges and using 10,000w of power, you'd still be breaking US law since you voluntarily ID with the US callsign. Again, in the part you didn't quote, I said the FCC may not be able to actually get at you to prosecute you, but they CAN suspend or revoke your license. The "locals" would no doubt have some harsh words for you too. Steve, K4YZ |
Scorecard on WT Docket 05-235
|
Scorecard on WT Docket 05-235
On 26 Oct 2005 03:27:19 -0700, "K4YZ" wrote:
wrote: On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 02:22:38 +0000, Iitoi wrote: K4YZ Wrote: And those rules apply to NON-US citizens on FOREIGN soil. Any person holding an American Amateur license must operate thier station in accordance with Part 97 when exercising the privileges of their US license. Ya got that WRONG! FCC rules apply on US soil. Foreign rules apply on foreign soil. At best you might get some reciprocal privs, but those privs are under the rules of the soil you stand on. don't you know Stevie is Mighty Macho Morseman and is never wrong OF course there's times when I am wrong... For example, once upon a time I believed that you were a responsible, mature adult with whom one could carry on a meaningful conversation. another lie on your part That only lasted for a couple of posts, though. You burst that bubble real quick. Steve, K4YZ _________________________________________ Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server More than 140,000 groups Unlimited download http://www.usenetzone.com to open account |
Scorecard on WT Docket 05-235
Scorecard in the NCTA v. PCTA Amateur Opinions on NPRM 05-143:
As of 25 Oct 05, WT Docket 05-235 Comments on Test Element 1 Elimination/Retention tabulation: ALL to Date Since FR Notice -------------- --------------- Grand Total 2892 916 Indeterminate (note 1) 180 69 Value for Percentages 2708 847 Against NPRM (note 2) 846 [30.26%] 294 [34.71%] For NPRM (note 3) 1434 [52.95%] 398 [46.99%] Test Extra Only (note 4) 428 [15.81%] 155 [18.30%] This tabulation in agreement with FCC ECFS as of 3 PM EDT 26 Oct 05. Notes: Notice of NPRM 05-143 appeared in Federal Register for 31 August and established official end of Comments as 31 October 2005 and official end of Replies to Comments as 14 November 2005. The left column indicates totals for ALL dates. Right column indicates all totals beginning 31 August 2005 to day of this scorecard. It is unknown whether or not the FCC will consider Comments entered prior to 31 August 2005, hence the two column format used here. Fixed-font spacing used throughout. 1. Includes duplicate postings from same individual, "joke" or "test" entries which do not have a valid address, or polemicizing a personal pet peeve which has nothing to do with the NPRM, individuals not understanding the scope and purpose of the NPRM, one foreign citizen submission, and six who were commenting on another matter having nothing to do with amateur radio regulations. 2. Includes only those who are whole-heartedly AGAINST the NPRM and against dropping any code testing. 3. Includes only those who are whole-heartedly FOR the NPRM and the abolition of the morse code test. NPRM itself (first docket document on 15 July) is counted as a "for." 4. These are "in-betweeners" who wish to retain the code test for the "highest" class (Extra) but will accept eliminating the code test for other classes. Percentages are calculated from Grand Totals less Indeterminates. Stay tuned...the future of U.S. amateur radio is being made, like it or not. |
Scorecard on WT Docket 05-235
|
Scorecard on WT Docket 05-235
wrote: On 21 Oct 2005 20:05:26 -0700, wrote: wrote: grow up What does that mean in this context? in this context it means either do your own countor shut up Ah........So it's "wrong" to ask for a poster to clarify their position...We're just supposed to look at all the pretty letters and numbers then wonder? Are you saying that I should just shut up and not ask questions? it is his count so he makes the rules he will use I'm just asking for explanations of those rules. again and again and again Lennie ignores his request to clarify his parameters again and again and again. Len is under no obligation to answer your questions of anyone else if he chooses not Sure he's under an "obligation". He posts here voluntarily, ergo if he wants his "point" understood, he needs to explain the rationale for his numbers. To fail to do so is to just spam the NG with useless rhetoric. Not that THAT is anything new for Lennie...... Is that not allowed? apeartly len chooses to exercise his right to state by his refusal to answer to make exactly that determination "Apparently" In other words he can't do it. Lennie's clueless. As are you in your defense of him. It is his count, his rules, and he is NOT accountable to you, or me or even the FCC or Father Chrismass for that matter But he presumes to have us understand his numbers. He went to a lot of work to prepare and post them. WHY THEN, would he subsequently "refuse" to explain the rationale behind his work? Lennie alleges to be an engineer. This should NOT be beyond his scope to acomplish... Unless, like the spinmasters of central Europe of the 30's and 40's, his intent is to intentionally confuse and mislead. THEN his refusal to pony-up some answers is perfectly understandable. Is it somehow not "grown up" to ask questions about what those rules are? what you are doing, by going on and one about is interfere with others find the results of his work But you can't find the "results of his work" if there's no common standard in how the numbers were assayed, Markie. cut out of mercy to us all No..."cut" because YOU can't understand what's being said. now grow up and take a hint he isn't going to answer you Great...Now Lennie has an overgrown, functionally illiterate, deviant, developmentally delayed "adult" running interference for him! Next thing ya know Lennie will be getting DXCC tips from Brain! Steve, K4YZ |
Scorecard on WT Docket 05-235
On 26 Oct 2005 17:51:18 -0700, "K4YZ" wrote:
wrote: On 21 Oct 2005 20:05:26 -0700, wrote: wrote: grow up What does that mean in this context? in this context it means either do your own countor shut up Ah........So it's "wrong" to ask for a poster to clarify their position. no never said that but once or twice is fine to ask but when repated ..We're just supposed to look at all the pretty letters and numbers then wonder? no you don't have to do that either Are you saying that I should just shut up and not ask questions? it is his count so he makes the rules he will use I'm just asking for explanations of those rules. again and again and again Lennie ignores his request to clarify his parameters again and again and again. agreed Len has choosen to do so Jim knows it and continues to ask Len is under no obligation to answer your questions of anyone else if he chooses not Sure he's under an "obligation". no he is not that is bald faced lie on your part He posts here voluntarily, ergo if he wants his "point" understood, he needs to explain the rationale for his numbers. wrong again and there is no point in him explaining them to you or Jim I have asked and he has answered my questions I say again Len is under no obligation to answer your question or anyone elses To fail to do so is to just spam the NG with useless rhetoric. not at all Not that THAT is anything new for Lennie...... Is that not allowed? apeartly len chooses to exercise his right to state by his refusal to answer to make exactly that determination "Apparently" In other words he can't do it. Lennie's clueless. another lie Stevie he chooses not to answer those he deems are not into real discusion As are you in your defense of him. wrong again It is his count, his rules, and he is NOT accountable to you, or me or even the FCC or Father Chrismass for that matter But he presumes to have us understand his numbers. I am sure Len does not expect you or Jim to understand his number He went to a lot of work to prepare and post them. yes he did WHY THEN, would he subsequently "refuse" to explain the rationale behind his work? becuase he felt the questions were unworthy cuting rant Is it somehow not "grown up" to ask questions about what those rules are? what you are doing, by going on and one about is interfere with others find the results of his work But you can't find the "results of his work" if there's no common standard in how the numbers were assayed, Markie. his stabdards are clear enough I don't agree with all of them but they are his standards cut out of mercy to us all _________________________________________ Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server More than 140,000 groups Unlimited download http://www.usenetzone.com to open account |
Scorecard on WT Docket 05-235
wrote: On 22 Oct 2005 05:51:41 -0700, wrote: wrote: On 21 Oct 2005 20:05:26 -0700, wrote: wrote: grow up What does that mean in this context? in this context it means either do your own countor shut up Why? Is Len's count somehow sacred, and not open to any questions? no but he does npt have to answer any questions "not" Then to NOT clarify his work is to admit that it's not prepared in any remotely scientific manner, which is to say that it's just a lot of bufoonery. cut Len is under no obligation to answer your questions of anyone else if he chooses not That's right. But if he ignores questions on how his numbers were derived, why should we accept those numbers as valid? then don't accept them as valid But why? Lennie went to a lot of effort to make these posts in order to validate his points. Why then would he NOT want anyone to understand his "work"...?!?! Len isn't the only one counting the comments, btw. Is that not allowed? apeartly len chooses to exercise his right to state by his refusal to answer to make exactly that determination ?? Are you saying that if Len doesn't answer questions, then I don't have the right to ask questions? never siad you lacked the right "said" No...You didn't "say" it...You just told Jim to shut up. That's totally bogus. your effort to imply someone is doing something imporper is totalay bogus "improper" "totally" But it's NOT "bogus". He's been after Lennie to clarify his data collection methods, and YOU are telling Jim to just "accept" it or shut up. you distortion of a plea to stop asking question that is is clear are not going to be answered as someone tryin gto intfer with your ight is totaly bogus "Your" "trying" "to" "interfere" "right" No, it's NOT bogus. You've clearly attempted to coerce Jim into NOT asking Lennie VALID data collection questions on his "scorecard". YOU are the one doing the interfering. cut You're saying that Len has freedom of speech here, but I don't. liar No, he's not. I am excercising My rights to tell I think you are trying to infringe on Lens right (and now mine as well) to engage in legal actvities by harrasment You are "exercising" your right to be a foul-mouthed, ill-informed and arrogant idiot who is making false accusations. you are not in any way a victum of censorhsip "victim" Sure he is. YOU have point-blank told him to shut up. THAT is censorship. Steve, K4YZ |
Scorecard on WT Docket 05-235
On 26 Oct 2005 18:03:12 -0700, "K4YZ" wrote:
wrote: On 22 Oct 2005 05:51:41 -0700, wrote: wrote: On 21 Oct 2005 20:05:26 -0700, wrote: wrote: grow up What does that mean in this context? in this context it means either do your own countor shut up Why? Is Len's count somehow sacred, and not open to any questions? no but he does npt have to answer any questions "not" Then to NOT clarify his work is to admit that it's not prepared in any remotely scientific manner, which is to say that it's just a lot of bufoonery. not at all it more a matter of thinking the questioners to be buffons cut Len is under no obligation to answer your questions of anyone else if he chooses not That's right. But if he ignores questions on how his numbers were derived, why should we accept those numbers as valid? then don't accept them as valid But why? Lennie went to a lot of effort to make these posts in order to validate his points. but not to you or jim Why then would he NOT want anyone to understand his "work"...?!?! why should he care if you understand his work? you are not interested in facts you never have been Len isn't the only one counting the comments, btw. Is that not allowed? apeartly len chooses to exercise his right to state by his refusal to answer to make exactly that determination ?? Are you saying that if Len doesn't answer questions, then I don't have the right to ask questions? never siad you lacked the right "said" No...You didn't "say" it...You just told Jim to shut up. yes I did i told he wasn't going to get his answers and he should stop going on about it never sadi he did not have the right to ignore that request cuttng the raving of the nutjob _________________________________________ Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server More than 140,000 groups Unlimited download http://www.usenetzone.com to open account |
Scorecard on WT Docket 05-235
wrote: On 26 Oct 2005 18:03:12 -0700, "K4YZ" wrote: wrote: On 22 Oct 2005 05:51:41 -0700, wrote: wrote: On 21 Oct 2005 20:05:26 -0700, wrote: wrote: grow up What does that mean in this context? in this context it means either do your own countor shut up Why? Is Len's count somehow sacred, and not open to any questions? no but he does npt have to answer any questions "not" Then to NOT clarify his work is to admit that it's not prepared in any remotely scientific manner, which is to say that it's just a lot of bufoonery. not at all Sure it is! it more a matter of thinking the questioners to be buffons BBBWWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHYAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! "...to be buffons..." BBWWWHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! cut Len is under no obligation to answer your questions of anyone else if he chooses not That's right. But if he ignores questions on how his numbers were derived, why should we accept those numbers as valid? then don't accept them as valid But why? Lennie went to a lot of effort to make these posts in order to validate his points. but not to you or jim Sure he did...He posted them to a public forum. Why then would he NOT want anyone to understand his "work"...?!?! why should he care if you understand his work? If he wants to "make his point" he'd clarify his work. Otherwise all he's doing is spamming the NG. you are not interested in facts you never have been Sure I am. And when you PRESENT some, I will pay close attention, COLONEL..... Len isn't the only one counting the comments, btw. Is that not allowed? apeartly len chooses to exercise his right to state by his refusal to answer to make exactly that determination ?? Are you saying that if Len doesn't answer questions, then I don't have the right to ask questions? never siad you lacked the right "said" No...You didn't "say" it...You just told Jim to shut up. yes I did Then you acted to coerce him into supressing his speech. So here we have your voluntary admission of your wanton violation of Jim's civil rights...No grey area here...You did it! i told he wasn't going to get his answers and he should stop going on about it But if he wants to ask the question 10,000 times in 10,000 threads, it IS his RIGHT to do so... never sadi he did not have the right to ignore that request "said" You DID try to suppress Jim's freedom of speech. cuttng the raving of the nutjob The nutjob is in Chassell, Michigan. But I am not yet sure if it's you or the guy you're sleeping with........ Steve, K4YZ |
Scorecard on WT Docket 05-235
On 26 Oct 2005 19:05:14 -0700, "K4YZ" wrote:
wrote: On 26 Oct 2005 18:03:12 -0700, "K4YZ" wrote: wrote: On 22 Oct 2005 05:51:41 -0700, wrote: wrote: On 21 Oct 2005 20:05:26 -0700, wrote: wrote: grow up What does that mean in this context? in this context it means either do your own countor shut up Why? Is Len's count somehow sacred, and not open to any questions? no but he does npt have to answer any questions "not" Then to NOT clarify his work is to admit that it's not prepared in any remotely scientific manner, which is to say that it's just a lot of bufoonery. not at all Sure it is! nope it more a matter of thinking the questioners to be buffons cuting all after stevie proves he is not engaged in anything serious _________________________________________ Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server More than 140,000 groups Unlimited download http://www.usenetzone.com to open account |
Scorecard on WT Docket 05-235
wrote: On 26 Oct 2005 19:05:14 -0700, "K4YZ" wrote: wrote: On 26 Oct 2005 18:03:12 -0700, "K4YZ" wrote: wrote: On 22 Oct 2005 05:51:41 -0700, wrote: wrote: On 21 Oct 2005 20:05:26 -0700, wrote: wrote: grow up What does that mean in this context? in this context it means either do your own countor shut up Why? Is Len's count somehow sacred, and not open to any questions? no but he does npt have to answer any questions "not" Then to NOT clarify his work is to admit that it's not prepared in any remotely scientific manner, which is to say that it's just a lot of bufoonery. not at all Sure it is! nope Yep. it more a matter of thinking the questioners to be buffons cuting all after stevie proves he is not engaged in anything serious Markie, you can't even get your insults correct...It's EASY to make fun of you! "...buffons"...?!?! YOU IDIOT! Steve, K4YZ |
Scorecard on WT Docket 05-235
On 26 Oct 2005 19:58:05 -0700, "K4YZ" wrote:
wrote: On 26 Oct 2005 19:05:14 -0700, "K4YZ" wrote: wrote: On 26 Oct 2005 18:03:12 -0700, "K4YZ" wrote: wrote: On 22 Oct 2005 05:51:41 -0700, wrote: wrote: On 21 Oct 2005 20:05:26 -0700, wrote: wrote: grow up What does that mean in this context? in this context it means either do your own countor shut up Why? Is Len's count somehow sacred, and not open to any questions? no but he does npt have to answer any questions "not" Then to NOT clarify his work is to admit that it's not prepared in any remotely scientific manner, which is to say that it's just a lot of bufoonery. not at all Sure it is! nope Yep. no he simply sees no profit in enaging you on this issue he is right for himself it more a matter of thinking the questioners to be buffons cuting all after stevie proves he is not engaged in anything serious _________________________________________ Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server More than 140,000 groups Unlimited download http://www.usenetzone.com to open account |
Scorecard on WT Docket 05-235
|
Scorecard on WT Docket 05-235
Scorecard in the NCTA v. PCTA Amateur Opinions on NPRM 05-143:
As of 26 Oct 05, WT Docket 05-235 Comments on Test Element 1 Elimination/Retention tabulation: ALL to Date Since FR Notice -------------- --------------- Grand Total 3055 1079 Indeterminate (note 1) 192 81 Value for Percentages 2863 998 Against NPRM (note 2) 910 [31.78%] 355 [35.57%] For NPRM (note 3) 1486 [51.90%] 450 [45.09%] Test Extra Only (note 4) 467 [16.31%] 193 [19.33%] This tabulation in agreement with FCC ECFS as of 8 PM EDT 26 Oct 05. Notes: Notice of NPRM 05-143 appeared in Federal Register for 31 August and established official end of Comments as 31 October 2005 and official end of Replies to Comments as 14 November 2005. The left column indicates totals for ALL dates. Right column indicates all totals beginning 31 August 2005 to day of this scorecard. It is unknown whether or not the FCC will consider Comments entered prior to 31 August 2005, hence the two column format used here. Fixed-font spacing used throughout. 1. Includes duplicate postings from same individual, "joke" or "test" entries which do not have a valid address, or polemicizing a personal pet peeve which has nothing to do with the NPRM, individuals not understanding the scope and purpose of the NPRM, one foreign citizen submission, and six who were commenting on another matter having nothing to do with amateur radio regulations. 2. Includes only those who are whole-heartedly AGAINST the NPRM and against dropping any code testing. 3. Includes only those who are whole-heartedly FOR the NPRM and the abolition of the morse code test. NPRM itself (first docket document on 15 July) is counted as a "for." 4. These are "in-betweeners" who wish to retain the code test for the "highest" class (Extra) but will accept eliminating the code test for other classes. Percentages are calculated from Grand Totals less Indeterminates. Stay tuned...the future of U.S. amateur radio is being made, like it or not. |
Quote:
Since the official publication in the Federal Register, the comments seem to be turning "pro-code". 46.99% favor fully removing the cw test. 53.01% favor retaining some level of cw test. The Man in the Maze QRV at Baboquivari Peak, AZ |
Scorecard on WT Docket 05-235
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? :-) |
Scorecard on WT Docket 05-235
wrote: From: on Tues, Oct 25 2005 2:30 am 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. Here's a fact: Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy From: - Find messages by this author Date: 26 Oct 2005 21:12:58 -0700 Local: Wed, Oct 26 2005 11:12 pm Subject: Scorecard on WT Docket 05-235 Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...... An unlicensed, disruptive, foulmouthed, deceitful, documented liar trying to make some "point" about a licnesed Amateur posting in an Amateur related newsgroup.....Who ALSO goes the extra mile to point out the hour when his septigenarian self ought to be in bed himself.... But then Lennie always was the "Do What I Say, Not What I Do" kind of hypocrite. Putz. Steve, K4YZ |
Scorecard on WT Docket 05-235
Scorecard in the NCTA v. PCTA Amateur Opinions on NPRM 05-143:
As of 26 Oct 05, WT Docket 05-235 Comments on Test Element 1 Elimination/Retention tabulation: ALL to Date Since FR Notice -------------- --------------- Grand Total 3096 1120 Indeterminate (note 1) 194 83 Value for Percentages 2902 1037 Against NPRM (note 2) 910 [31.36%] 355 [34.23%] For NPRM (note 3) 1510 [52.03%] 474 [45.71%] Test Extra Only (note 4) 482 [16.61%] 208 [20.06%] Tabulation in agreement with FCC ECFS as of 11 AM EDT 27 Oct 05. Notes: Notice of NPRM 05-143 appeared in Federal Register for 31 August and established official end of Comments as 31 October 2005 and official end of Replies to Comments as 14 November 2005. The left column indicates totals for ALL dates. Right column indicates all totals beginning 31 August 2005 to day of this scorecard. It is unknown whether or not the FCC will consider Comments entered prior to 31 August 2005, hence the two column format used here. Fixed-font spacing used throughout. 1. Includes duplicate postings from same individual, "joke" or "test" entries which do not have a valid address, or polemicizing a personal pet peeve which has nothing to do with the NPRM, individuals not understanding the scope and purpose of the NPRM, two foreign resident submissions, and six who were commenting on another matter having nothing to do with amateur radio regulations. 2. Includes only those who are whole-heartedly AGAINST the NPRM and against dropping any code testing. 3. Includes only those who are whole-heartedly FOR the NPRM and the abolition of the morse code test. NPRM itself (first docket document on 15 July) is counted as a "for." 4. These are "in-betweeners" who wish to retain the code test for the "highest" class (Extra) but will accept eliminating the code test for other classes. Percentages are calculated from Grand Totals less Indeterminates. This posting replaces the previous for 26 October, 41 filings added by FCC to ECFS under that date as of 27 October, 11 AM EDT. Stay tuned...the future of U.S. amateur radio is being made, like it or not. |
Scorecard on WT Docket 05-235
|
Scorecard on WT Docket 05-235
Scorecard in the NCTA v. PCTA Amateur Opinions on NPRM 05-143:
As of 27 Oct 05, WT Docket 05-235 Comments on Test Element 1 Elimination/Retention tabulation: ALL to Date Since FR Notice -------------- --------------- Grand Total 3174 1192 Indeterminate (note 1) 199 86 Value for Percentages 2975 1106 Against NPRM (note 2) 938 [31.36%] 379 [34.27%] For NPRM (note 3) 1533 [51.53%] 497 [44.94%] Test Extra Only (note 4) 504 [16.94%] 230 [20.80%] Tabulation in agreement with FCC ECFS as of 5 PM EDT 28 Oct 05. Notes: Notice of NPRM 05-143 appeared in Federal Register for 31 August and established official end of Comments as 31 October 2005 and official end of Replies to Comments as 14 November 2005. The left column indicates totals for ALL dates. Right column indicates all totals beginning 31 August 2005 to day of this scorecard. It is unknown whether or not the FCC will consider Comments entered prior to 31 August 2005, hence the two column format used here. Fixed-font spacing used throughout. 1. Includes duplicate postings from same individual, "joke" or "test" entries which do not have a valid address, or polemicizing a personal pet peeve which has nothing to do with the NPRM, individuals not understanding the scope and purpose of the NPRM, two foreign resident submissions, and six who were commenting on another matter having nothing to do with amateur radio regulations. 2. Includes only those who are whole-heartedly AGAINST the NPRM and against dropping any code testing. 3. Includes only those who are whole-heartedly FOR the NPRM and the abolition of the morse code test. NPRM itself (first docket document on 15 July) is counted as a "for." 4. These are "in-betweeners" who wish to retain the code test for the "highest" class (Extra) but will accept eliminating the code test for other classes. Percentages are calculated from Grand Totals less Indeterminates. Stay tuned...the future of U.S. amateur radio is being made, like it or not. |
Scorecard on WT Docket 05-235
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: 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: It's about *your* 'scorecard', Len. Yes, it is. Did you think someone ELSE bothered to read ALL the filings on WT Docket 05-235 and compile a day-by-day tabulation of them? YOU did NOT. Do those 'filings' include only Comments, or other things like Reply Comments? ALL the filings, Jimmie-James. ALL of them. Even those filings which aren't about amateur radio! :-) But it's not about me, Len. I'm not posting a 'scorecard' and making any claims. You are. Tsk, tsk...Jimmie-James, you ARE making "claims" of "inaccuracy" and implications of badness. :-) But, you've NOT made one single filing on WT Docket 05-235 as of 5 PM EDT on 28 October 2005. In fact, the LAST time you filed ANYTHING with the FCC ECFS was over 12 months ago on a Petition. Tsk, tsk. It's not about me, Len. I'm not posting a 'scorecard' and making any claims. You are. Tsk, tsk...I'm NOT "making claims." I'm doing READING and counting and tabulating what I find. If you dislike the results, DON'T READ THE "SCORE CARD." [simple solution] That seems to unduly upset you. Tsk. If it bothers you so much, just stop reading this thread! [easy solution to your apparent problem] Why is that so important to you? Why is YOUR HECKLING "so important" to YOU? :-) You aren't even discussing the opinions in all those 3,199 filings. All you do is try to trash-mouth those who've bothered to look at ALL the filings. Tsk, tsk. I read those notes. They are not comprehensive. They do not answer several questions I have raised. Why is that "so important to you?" YOU are NOT in the FCC. YOU are NOT on the ARRL BoD. 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. In other words, nobody checks your work. No, dearie, that is NOT "in other words." All you are doing is simple-minded heckling of ME...which seems "so important to you." :-) It's a very simple question. ...from a VERY unsatisfied simple person... :-) You've filed at least 5 different comments and reply comments, all of which are in support of the NPRM. Yes, and...? Are you FORBIDDING my communications with my own government?!? Do they show up as a count of 1 or 5 on the tally of "for" filings? Tsk, tsk...you understand very poorly. I've already said I count ALL the filings. Why does what I have posted matter at all? Tsk. You talk MUCH in HERE about this NPRM yet you have said NOTHING to the FCC on NPRM 05-143. It would seem you are all about gabbling and heckling and don't have the guts to make yourself heard to the FCC. You're ducking some very basic questions. NOT "ducking" anything, Jimmie-James. You HECKLE a lot, asking inane questions to which the answers were already posted with the first of my "score cards." Tsk, tsk, tsk...you are acting like a whiny, petulant little child with all those "I'm just asking questions" nonsense comments. Seems to me you'd be proud to show how your totals came about, but instead you attack the messenger. Tsk. I "attack the messenger?!?" :-) What do you call YOUR remarks in HERE, then, Jimmie-James? Some kind of self-appointed morals-ethics "policeman" when all you are is a petulant, whiny little heckler. As you've pointed out (more than once), the "score card" is MINE, isn't it? :-) If so, then I make up the rules, don't I? :-) You don't like the results? Don't read the "score card." The results of the NPRM and its final Report and Order will NOT AFFECT YOU, will it? You have your beloved badge, title, rank, attendant privileges, and a neat certificate (suitable for framing). Nobody can take that away from you. The results of the final R&O will NOT affect you insofar as amateur radio operating, will it? Your name is James P. Miccolis. That's one way to write it. You have OTHER ways to write your legal name? :-) But for some reason you have extreme difficulty calling people by their names. I wrote "your name is James P. Miccolis." No problem to me. It was easy to write. :-) NOT "extreme difficulty." Y'know, Len, you seem to miss the point on a lot of things. "Miss the point?" I've never been to West Point. Tell us about it, your cadet days before you were actively "serving your country." I've been to Point Loma, Point Reyes, all without "missing" my way there. I have an LED pointer. I haven't missed with that one for a long while. A comment to FCC is not a vote. Citizenship is not required to comment. Did you fail high school Civics class? No - I got all A's. You "claim." :-) FCC accepts comments from noncitizens too. They don't *have* to do that, but they do it anyway. So...you have it on "good authority" that the FCC actually CONSIDERS those comments in deciding on a final R&O? Tell us more, Mr. Insider. You ARE with the FCC, aren't you? If FCC is willing to accept comments from foreigners, why don't you list them as part of the total? Tsk, tsk, tsk, Jimmie-James, they ARE listed. Have been since the first of them showed up. Gee, Len, you exhibit very childish behavior here ;-) Ha. Ha. Ha. I'm not the one asking inane, petulant "questions" which had ANSWERS already posted on the "score card." YOU ARE. Looks like the prevailing opinion is in support of code testing. For Extras, at least. Why is that "so important to you?" It won't affect YOUR amateur privileges. The official end of Comments on WT Docket 05-235 is 31 October 2005; official end of Replies to Comments is 14 November 2005. I am posting this message on 28 October 2005. Whatever filings are there, I'm simply READING them ALL, counting them up, tabulating them and posting the results. There's no age limit on an amateur radio license, nor on commentary to FCC. I'm NOT taking any "age limits" in my "score card," Jimmie. :-) Why do you continue to make whiny little petulant remarks about things NOT in the "score card?" I see no need for a minimum age requirement for licensing in the amateur radio service. NPRM 05-143 is NOT about U.S. amateur radio license "age requirements." Grow up. You have stated here that you have always had problems integrating young people into what you consider an adult activity. Like VOTING if one is below the age limit? I have NO "problem" with that. Like getting a driver's license below the state law age minimum? I have NO "problem" with that. Like buying alcohol in a store by those below the state law minimums? I have NO "problem" with that. Like serving in the armed forces below the age minimum? I have NO "problem" with that. [you should have NO "problem" with that since you've never served] Like getting married before the minimum legal age? I have NO "problem" with that. [are you married, Jimmie? Had sex yet?] Because they're relevant to your attitude towards young people. Tsk. LOTS and LOTS of ordinary folks are all FOR minimum age requirements in MANY things, Jimmie. I have NO "problems" with that. YOU have a big PROBLEM with that, though. Yet you don't answer questions on the process. Why? Tsk, tsk, tsk...I don't "answer" heckling about questions which have had ANSWERS already posted in the Notes section of my "score card." :-) There are no "CHARGES of inaccuracy" - just some questions on your processes. You have only whiny, petulant, childish HECKLING of others, Jimmie. Not a nice thing to do. And that means your postings are fair game for comment and question by others. They are not somehow sacred and unimpeachable. They are not immune to question and/or debat. Freudian slip, Jimmie. The word is "debate." :-) "De bat" is what you think you swing. But, you ain't got a ball enough to post your own Comment on WT Docket 05-235. :-) It seems to me that you cannot tolerate any disagreement with your views. Tsk, tsk, tsk...it seems you get VERY UPSET when a sizeable group of hobbyists don't like morse code testing! :-) Makes you ill-tempered, whiny, petulant, and childish with your inane heckling! :-) Did I say the numbers were wrong? You implied that several times. :-) Or did I simply ask how they were derived, and pointed out how they *might be* in error? You not only MIGHT be WRONG on your "assessment" but you ARE. :-) Tsk, tsk, tsk...then you should cancel my amateur radio license then, refuse to give me my amateur paycheck? :-) It's really all about money to you, isn't it? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA.... :- Poor Jimmie? Double-degreed "engineer" and you can't MAKE ENOUGH to spend over $100 on a rig? :-) Guess what, Len - I stay up very late to operate my amateur radio station. Who cares? :-) It's YOUR body you are abusing... Besides, you're such an experienced expert on "computer-modem communications" that you should be able to find the tally without my help. I haven't needed it yet, Jimmie. :-) Why not just answer the questions I posed, Len? What "answers" would you LIKE, Jimmie? :-) [it isn't working, Jimmie, get a new knuckle-spanking ruler for the Nun of the Above] Ah yes, you advocate violence against those who question your statements and beliefs. "Knuckle-spanking" is VIOLENCE? BWAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.... ...... My name is not "Jimmie", so it can't be me. Ah, but it IS, Jimmie. :-) You want "formality?" Should we call you "your majesty?" :-) Godwin invoked. You lose, Len. I haven't "lost" anything, Jimmie-James. :-) Tell "Godwin" to send me e-mail if he (or you) are so upset... And ignoring honest questions about the process. Ask them "honestly" and I might give you answers...but the ANSWERS were already in every "score card" before you ever asked them! :-) You haven't been a radio amateur - ever - yet you tell us all How It Should Be in amateur radio. Tsk. Who can "tell" a morseman anything? :-) You equate questions with heckling. Yours ARE. :-) Your explanations are incomplete and inadequate. Tsk, tsk. I don't give you the "answers you want" and "with the proper respectful attitude." BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAH... I did. Your explanations are incomplete and inadequate. Tsk, tsk. I don't give you the "answers you want" and "with the proper respectful attitude." BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAH... James P. Miccolis has NOT filed anything with the ECFS since August of last year. ["put your money where your mouth is"] Why don't you, Len? Tsk, tsk...Jimmie-James has already FORGOTTEN about his remark and my five filings on WT Docket 05-235. James P. Miccolis has exactly ZERO filings on that Docket. :-) 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. I'm simply pointing out that you're not going to get an amateur radio license. How is that "important" to YOU? It sure isn't "important" on NPRM 05-143 what any Commenter is "going to do." :-) Had you READ ALL the filings, you would have seen some interesting ones (other than mine, of course) by NON-radio-hobbyists! Try an educational institution for starters... If you wanted one, you'd have gotten one years ago. Tsk, tsk, tsk. Why? :-) Get a ham license to "do a 'service' to my country?" :-) Done the REAL service, Jimmie. Well, I DID not follow the "accepted formal sequence" by getting an amateur radio license BEFORE I operated all those transmitters at ADA long ago...and messed that up by getting a Commercial radio license after being released from Army service ten years after I turned the magic age of fourteen. :-) You don't want one and you're not going to get one. I don't want your childish, petulant, whiny heckling in here but I will EXPECT to get thousands of them... :-) What you really want is something very different. I want the FCC to make NPRM 05-143 into a Report and Order...without changes to the basic precepts in the NPRM. So...how long have YOU been taking those post-graduate courses in behavioral psychology, Jimmie-James? Do you plan on becoming a licensed shrink? Or do you just wear shrink-wrap? BWAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHA......... |
Scorecard on WT Docket 05-235
|
Scorecard on WT Docket 05-235
Scorecard in the NCTA v. PCTA Amateur Opinions on NPRM 05-143:
As of 28 Oct 05, WT Docket 05-235 Comments on Test Element 1 Elimination/Retention tabulation: ALL to Date Since FR Notice -------------- --------------- Grand Total 3199 1217 Indeterminate (note 1) 202 89 Value for Percentages 2997 1128 Against NPRM (note 2) 949 [31.66%] 390 [34.57%] For NPRM (note 3) 1540 [51.38%] 504 [44.68%] Test Extra Only (note 4) 508 [16.95%] 234 [20.74%] Tabulation in agreement with FCC ECFS as of 2 PM EDT 29 Oct 05. Notes: Notice of NPRM 05-143 appeared in Federal Register for 31 August and established official end of Comments as 31 October 2005 and official end of Replies to Comments as 14 November 2005. The left column indicates totals for ALL dates. Right column indicates all totals beginning 31 August 2005 to day of this scorecard. It is unknown whether or not the FCC will consider Comments entered prior to 31 August 2005, hence the two column format used here. Fixed-font spacing used throughout. 1. Includes duplicate postings from same individual, "joke" or "test" entries which do not have a valid address, or polemicizing a personal pet peeve which has nothing to do with the NPRM, individuals not understanding the scope and purpose of the NPRM, two foreign resident submissions, and six who were commenting on another matter having nothing to do with amateur radio regulations. 2. Includes only those who are whole-heartedly AGAINST the NPRM and against dropping any code testing. 3. Includes only those who are whole-heartedly FOR the NPRM and the abolition of the morse code test. NPRM itself (first docket document on 15 July) is counted as a "for." 4. These are "in-betweeners" who wish to retain the code test for the "highest" class (Extra) but will accept eliminating the code test for other classes. Percentages are calculated from Grand Totals less Indeterminates. Stay tuned...the future of U.S. amateur radio is being made, like it or not. |
Scorecard on WT Docket 05-235
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: It's about *your* 'scorecard', Len. Yes, it is. Well, at least you finally admit to that plain and simple fact. Let's see...Google accepts MY postings only under my IEEE alias and I "sign" every "score card" with ." WHO would be posting a "score card" under my name if NOT me? :-) Did you think someone ELSE bothered to read ALL the filings on WT Docket 05-235 and compile a day-by-day tabulation of them? I don't think that. I know it's true. I've seen the compilation done by someone else and it's more informative than yours. WHO else, Jimmie? You are begining to sound like Dudly the Imposter in here, always NON-specific but alleging you "know" someone else. You've never been a radio amateur but you tell us How Amateur Radio Should Be. Which is your right of free speech. MISTAKE. ERROR. I'm telling the Federal Communications Commission (a U.S. federal government agency) what I think the regulations on GETTING INTO amateur radio "should be." [i.e., my desires] Tsk. I could NOT "tell you anything" about amateur radio or anything else if it was against what you wrote in here. You would spend days, weeks, even years arguing over a "discussion" as you did on "age requirements" LONG AFTER I dropped it. :-) The thing you seem to have trouble with is when others use their right of free speech. Tsk, tsk, I'm USED to heckling, catcalls, booing from the peanut gallery in computer-modem communications. Been doing that since early December, 1984. YOU are one of the hecklers. Who is "Jimmie-James", Len? An imaginary friend of yours? James P. Micollis, the one whose legal address given to the FCC is at 136 Morningside Circle, Wayne, PA 19087. Are YOU this same "James P. Miccolis?" Answer truthfully. Any false responses will be treated to 23 years of heckling... ;-) ALL of them. Even those filings which aren't about amateur radio! :-) Finally! An answer to a straightforward question! Thank you. Tsk, tsk. That ANSWER was clearly given in the Notes on each "score card" posting since the first one. You did not seem to understand it. Why did you keep on asking, keep on asking, keep on asking? Disk record broken? But I, Jim/N2EY, am simply asking questions about your 'scorecard' process, and pointing out the *potential* for inaccuracy. Tsk, tsk, tsk. The plain simple fact is that I am giving you ANSWERS to stupid questions whose answers were in plain sight in every "score card" posting I've done. That sort of thing seems to really bother you, Len. Poor baby. You keep asking all these inane questions. Why? Are you afraid of the RESULTS of the opinions of the "amateur community" being against your amateur Beliefs? Sure seems that way. But, you've NOT made one single filing on WT Docket 05-235 as of 5 PM EDT on 28 October 2005. So? Is the filing of comments with FCC a requirement for asking questions and posting comments here? Tsk, tsk, tsk. After the tens of thousands of whiny, petulant words, accusations, and implications in HERE, you can't even make ONE filing on WT Docket 05-235 on MORSE CODE TESTING?!? :-) Who made you the moderator? The same one who made YOU "moderator!" :-) In fact, the LAST time you filed ANYTHING with the FCC ECFS was over 12 months ago on a Petition. Tsk, tsk. What's so "tsk tsk" about that? Tsk, tsk, tsk. After the tens of thousands of whiny, petulant words, accusations, and implications in HERE, you can't even make ONE filing on WT Docket 05-235 on MORSE CODE TESTING?!? Tsk, tsk...I'm NOT "making claims." Yes, you are, Len. You're claiming your 'scorecard' is accurate but you won't answer questions about how it is prepared. 1. The "answers" were ALREADY POSTED in each of the "score cards" I put up via Google. Well before you "asked" for the first one. 2. You've gotten answers to your (petulant, whiny, accusatory) "questions" in here...but you sure as hell don't LIKE them! That may be changing, which is a good thing. Who appoint you "judge" of what is "a good thing" or a "bad thing?" 3. The attitude towards morse code testing in the U.S. amateur community has been CHANGING all along...AWAY from the old, Old, OLD standards and practices. That seems to **** you off greatly and makes you petulant, whiny, and accusatory. Tsk. Here's another solution, Len: If you don't want commentary on things you post, don't post them. Tsk, tsk, tsk. You are telling me to SHUT UP! [but are attempting to disguise it with uncivil "civil phrases"] You seem to want everyone to just accept what you write here without question, even though you don't behave that way towards others. Doesn't work that way. ERROR! MISTAKE!! Sorry, dearie, but it DOES work that way. Tsk, tsk, tsk. Did God appoint YOU as "judge" of "what works" and "doesn't work" in here? [He didn't tell me that this morning] Do you have a Certificate of Licensure (suitable for framing) from a Divine Authority granting you "judgement" capability on who posts what? I don't think so... That seems to unduly upset you. Tsk. If it bothers you so much, just stop reading this thread! [easy solution to your apparent problem] You are the one getting upset, Len. Not me. "Upset?" No. You are just another heckler out to AVENGE some perceived slight/negativism/whathaveyou against you in the past in a computer-modem venue. My answers to your inane, petulant "questions" are just a way for me to keep in writing shape. :-) Why is that so important to you? Why is YOUR HECKLING "so important" to YOU? :-) ANSWER the question. You aren't even discussing the opinions in all those 3,199 filings. All you do is try to trash-mouth those who've bothered to look at ALL the filings. Tsk, tsk. Seems to me that asking questions is defined as "heckling" and "trash-mouth" by you... Tsk, tsk, tsk...EXACTLY the technique of Dudly the Imposter in here! [you HAVE been taking lessons from your buddie, aintcha?] "Sweetums," you have NOT discussed ONE SINGLE filing on WT DOCKET 05-235 since you began this heckling attempt! :-) I read those notes. They are not comprehensive. They do not answer several questions I have raised. Why is that "so important to you?" I'm just asking you to clarify your process. Is that so difficult to understand? Tsk, tsk, tsk. WE - most of the readers in here - UNDERSTAND that you are just HECKLING. :-) That YOU don't understand what others understand must mean that your EGO has been sorely wounded...or you are some kind of idiot so blinded by your own Beliefs that you can't understand it. YOU are NOT in the FCC. YOU are NOT on the ARRL BoD. Neither are you, Len. That doesn't explain why YOU constantly pretend to be "judge" and try to make nasty to others who state opinions contrary to what YOU find "objectionable." There are NO RULES in "score card" postings other than what the poster places in public view. I have done that. Since the first "score card" posting. The Notes given with each "card" are clear and comprehensive. "Asking for clarification" of yours is nothing more than adult- language puerile petulant HECKLING done for malicious intent of your own. Nobody checks your work. *I* check my work. YOU don't like it, go do your OWN scoring. Nobody checks your work. *I* check my work. YOU don't like it, go do your OWN scoring. It's a very simple question. ...from a VERY unsatisfied simple person... :-) Poor Jimmie. Keeps trying to heckle "civilly." Remains just heckling, though, whiny petulant heckling of a four-year-old mentality. You've filed at least 5 different comments and reply comments, all of which are in support of the NPRM. Yes, and...? Are you FORBIDDING my communications with my own government?!? Of course not. Then WHY do you make such a molehill out of that mountain? Are you forbidding my free speech? Tsk, tsk, you are impossible to suppress. Did you buy new Energizer batteries or something? Do they show up as a count of 1 or 5 on the tally of "for" filings? Tsk, tsk...you understand very poorly. Incorrect. I understand very well. You explain very poorly. Poor baby. Always trying to make yourself the "superior." You don't get the answers you WANT, so you bitch and whine and get all snarly about "poor explanations!" Sorry, but the Nun of the Above can't elevate herself to Mother Superior. I've already said I count ALL the filings. In other words, your own comments and reply comments are counted as 5 filings *for* the NPRM, not 1. Also means you're counting the multiple filings of others, including one person who was "for" the NPRM and filed no less than 17 filings. Tsk, tsk, tsk...my Notes said that DUPLICATES would be counted as "Indeterminate" category and not used for the Percentage figures. Clearly. The duplicate filer For the NPRM gives his name as Vincent Garcell. Another one Against the NPRM, with 13 total filings, is Dwayne Sparks. The ECFS totals ALL of the filings in one Docket on any Search. It doesn't discriminate against filings which aren't even about amateur radio! Perhaps you ought to bitch and whine to the FCC and Tell Them What To Do! An alternative compilation that I have seen indicates multiple filings by the same person. Last time I looked, multiple filings by those "for" the NPRM exceeded multiple filings by those "against" it by at least 32 comments. That's about 1%. Hey, Dudly II, WHOSE "alternative compilation?" WHOSE. Where is this alleged "alternative compilation" to be found? Why am I supposed to follow the "rules" of this "alternate compilation?" Because YOU said so? [of course, silly question!] So your counting method overstates the support for the NPRM by at least that percentage. Well then, go BITCH to the FCC and NTIA (who govern part of the U.S. Internet) that I am being terribly "dishonest" and have me thrown off the 'net or something! :-) You post your results to four significant figures, yet if your counting method is as described above, it's inaccurate by at least 1% from that one source of error. You poor baby. You would COMPLAIN if it was 3, 2, or 1 significant figure. :-) You make a lot of noise about amateur radio but you've never been a radio amateur. And from all appearances you're never going to get an amateur radio license. "Motivation" is now a "necessity?!?" Of course it is. YOU are a mighty macho MOTIVATED morseman and all must think like YOU. So why do are you so obsessed with it? Why are YOU so obsessed with alleging I make errors and falseness? You DO sound a lot like Dudly the Imposter! As you've pointed out (more than once), the "score card" is MINE, isn't it? :-) If so, then I make up the rules, don't I? :-) You don't like the results? Don't read the "score card." What you're really saying is that you cannot tolerate opposing opinions, questions, or facts that contradict your assertions. WRONG. In the first few weeks of posting the "score card," the only REAL questions appearing in the threads were those of accessing the ECFS and how to file. By others. And answered by another besides myself. After the "score card" format change due to LATE notice in the Federal Register, suddenly YOU appear with all the allegations of inhonesty, "questions" on procedure, etc., etc., etc. :-) YOUR whole purpose with those "questions" seems to be with your on-going dissatisfaction with ANYTHING I post in here. There is the question of "motivation" for your harrassment. Why are you so OBSESSED with trying to toss me off? The results of the NPRM and its final Report and Order will NOT AFFECT YOU, will it? It may. Changes in the rules of the amateur radio service may have a profound effect on me, because I'm an active licensed radio amateur. Then seek MENTAL counseling. There is NOTHING to deny present- day privileges to ALREADY-LICENSED U.S. radio amateurs in NPRM 05-143. There are NO statements of ALREADY-LICENSED amateurs having to do a single test or examination in order to continue their existing privileges. YOUR only problem is MENTAL. You should learn to accept change, not try to maintain old, trite, tired Beliefs of long ago. There's very little chance that changes in the rules of the amateur radio service will have *any* effect on you, because you're not a licensed radio amateur, and it doesn't appear that you'll ever be one. The morse code test WILL AFFECT new licensees. You have your "affects" totally BACKWARD. On top of that, you've tried more snide uncivil "civility" in my "motivation" towards getting any amateur radio license. NO ONE is required to toady up to some already-licensed U.S. radio amateur and HAVE to state "motivation." NOBODY. FCC can also decide to change license privileges, subbands, etc., all of which can have a profound affect on those who actually operate in the licensed service. NPRM 05-143 is solely about the MORSE CODE TEST, Jimmie. The TEST. The TEST does NOT affect those ALREADY LICENSED. The TEST affects those GETTING INTO U.S. amateur radio. The ONLY "profound effect" [sic, not 'affect'] on those ALREADY IN amateur radio is MENTAL. Each ALREADY LICENSED amateur will have to work that out by themselves. The FCC is NOT chartered as a mental correction aid agency. Poor baby. All confused mentally and refusing to admit it! Some days back, you posted a description of your experiences with cb radio back in the late 1950s and early 1960s. You told us how you installed a manufactured cb transceiver and antenna in your car and used it. You told us the performance was *excellent* - for about four years. Then it wasn't so excellent anymore. Where did the excellence go, Len? It went to the Chevrolet auto dealer in Canoga Park, CA, as a trade-in. It was a 1953 Austin-Healey sports car with an all-aluminum body (excellent ground plane). That "Healey" got me an introduction to my first wife. She persuaded me to buy the replacement 1961 Impala Convertible. She was diagnosed with cancer soon after and died after a year. While the Johnson Viking "Messenger" CB performed well in the Impala, I rather lost interest in both personal radio use and that car after that. Or do you "see" such an attitude, being the compleat morseman you are? There, aren't you HAPPY over having a newsgroup "opponent" go through difficulties? Maybe you want an ice-cold emotionless set of numbers of performance of the Viking Messenger now (I still have that old radio)? It still meets manufacturers' (and FCC) specifications. Do you see how the same could happen to amateur radio? NOT at all. 1. The 11 m amateur band of 1958 was taken away from amateurs in the USA then, 47 years ago. It (and some other services) were allocated to use part of it. 2. NPRM 05-235 is about the MORSE CODE TEST for a United States radio amateur license examination. That has NOTHING to do with "CB." 3. You try to connect (1) and (2) and there is NO possible connection. I'm not saying that *will* happen, just that it *could* happen. Sigh...you have a rationalization for EVERY dumb thing you connect, don't you? The Sun can go nova! "I'm not saying that *will* happen, just that it *could* happen." A giant meteor can impact the Earth and cause widespread devastation! "I'm not saying that *will* happen, just that it *could* happen." Morse code testing elimination would cause widespread suicides of morsemen from "their world coming to an end!" "I'm not saying that *will* happen, just that it *could* happen." :-) Existing licensees can be profoundly affected by rules changes. Only MENTALLY. Their "radio world" would come to an end if morse code testing stopped! Jimmie, do some post-grad work in psychology...you could make a mint offering solace to those poor, unfortunate depressed morsemen! Since your are not a radio amateur and not likely to become one regardless of rules changes, the NPRM results don't really affect you. Tsk, tsk, tsk. I'm "not likely to become one regardless of rules changes?!?" Now you pretend to "know" the future as well as "motivation!" Amazing gifts you think you have! NPRM 05-235 is about MORSE CODE TESTING, Jimmie, NOT just about ME. The point about eliminating the morse code test, other than making the regulations better, is to give ALL those interested in amateur radio the OPPORTUNITY to get into it without that old, outdated, arbitrary manual test for morsemanship. There will be NO effect on operating privileges of already- licensed amateurs due to elimination of the morse code test. NONE Judging by how often you call people by other than their legal names, it's clear you have a lot of difficulty in that area. Poor baby. "It's clear" you have some terrible, gnawing dispute with anything I write in here. :-) Y'know, Len, you seem to miss the point on a lot of things. No. All the readers in here have gotten YOUR "point." If they don't agree with you, you blabber out lines and lines and lines of misdirections, personal allegations, dredge up old, old arguments to attempt re-arguing them again. NPRM 05-143 is NOT about U.S. amateur radio license "age requirements." Neither was the previous restructuring NPRM. Yet you included recommendations in your reply comments recommending such a limit. I made that SUGGESTION on page 14 of my 14-page Reply to Comments of Deignan, shown in the ECFS as of 13 January 1999. That was over six years ago. I have NOT pursued that since except for the accusations leveled at me in here. The "Restructuring" Report and Order came out in late December, 1999, as FCC 99-412. I have NOT pressed that point with the FCC since...except YOU have to drag it out and drag it out and drag it out until that poor dead horse has been hammered into a stain on this old highway. "Sweetums," you want to rehash OLD stuff? You DO? Okay, I'll try to hound you about NEVER serving your country in the military every time you make some pontifical remark showing your "military expertise." But you have "a problem" with 13 year olds getting amateur radio licenses. No. I have a "problem" with mental 13-year-olds in here posing as adults and who ask all sorts of inane "questions" (that were already answered a priori) and make all kinds of accusations...all of which may be summed up as HECKLING. I'm not the one recommending an age requirement for a US amateur radio license. You are. I DID. I dropped it after 13 January 1999. That was OVER SIX YEARS ago. You are STILL OFFENDED over that! So...maybe you LIKE talking to 13-year-olds on the radio using radiotelegraphy that makes all age clues meaningless? Does that satisfy some internal desires of yours? "I'm just asking some questions." That's right. Your postings are fair game for comment and question by others. They are not somehow sacred and unimpeachable. They are not immune to question and/or debate. Wow! You've FINALLY gotten the picture, Judge! :-) Tsk, tsk. You forgot to add in the part where, if YOU ask someone something they MUST answer or you will make tens of thousands of words in messaging if you don't get the answers you WANT! :-) Poor Jimmie? Double-degreed "engineer" and you can't MAKE ENOUGH to spend over $100 on a rig? :-) It really *is* all about money to you, Len. Oh, oh, the commie sympathizer comes out of his closet in PA? Well, that's a sure indication YOU don't have as much money as YOU want. :-) Yup...and it shows you HATE professionals for some reason. Odd, because you claim to BE a professional in electronics. Us readers don't know WHERE since you won't mention your employer...not here, not to the FCC. You must be working under a ton of non-disclosure agreements...tsk, tsk. I'm "all about money?" Not really. Got some. Spent some. Dropped $1100 last week at CompUSA-GoodGuys for a 27" HD LCD flat panel TV this week and it works just dandy. [it doesn't do morse code so I guess you wouldn't be interested in it] I haven't made a single cent posting in here or filing with the FCC (negative cash flow there). Someone pay YOU to post in here? Someone pay you NOT to file with the FCC? I want the FCC to make NPRM 05-143 into a Report and Order...without changes to the basic precepts in the NPRM. Why? Those changes won't affect you. They MAY. They WILL affect all those who desire to enter HF amateur radio without taking a code test. Other than mentally, emotionally, how will the removal of the morse code test affect YOU? It won't remove any of your operating privileges, won't make you re-test. Oh, I understand now. Removal of the code test will deflate the self-importance you assume as a mighty macho morseman stressing the "importance" and "necessity" of morsemanship in amateur radio! That would be a PROFOUND change to you emotionally! Can't have the government make you feel bad, can we? Yes, removal of the code test will remove one of the key tools of your CONTROL-oriented personality, the one where you can assume the high horse and dictate how others MUST do! There's always been a code test for radio amateurs, you took one and passed, and by God and St. Hiram, so others must DO as you did! Vital. Necessity. Follow orders. Beat the drum constantly in the morse rhythm. beep beep |
Scorecard on WT Docket 05-235
|
Scorecard on WT Docket 05-235
From: on Oct 30, 2:15 pm
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: It's about *your* 'scorecard', Len. Yes, it is. Well, at least you finally admit to that plain and simple fact. Let's see...Google accepts MY postings only under my IEEE alias and I "sign" every "score card" with ." WHO would be posting a "score card" under my name if NOT me? :-) I've seen none other than yours. Perhaps Jim is "seeing" things. Well, maybe he was told by Dudly the Imposter's buddie...the one that said 'I was trying to hire into NADC in PA' and 'wasn't performing well while I was there' in 1971 (34 years ago!). :-) Did you think someone ELSE bothered to read ALL the filings on WT Docket 05-235 and compile a day-by-day tabulation of them? I don't think that. I know it's true. I've seen the compilation done by someone else and it's more informative than yours. WHO else, Jimmie? "Persons of Interest." The only "persons of interest" I know are my financial advisers at Bank of America. Whoops, now I did it...Jimmie will say "I'm all about money!" :-) You are begining to sound like Dudly the Imposter in here, always NON-specific but alleging you "know" someone else. Translation for Jim: Dudley the Imposter IS K4YZ. You've never been a radio amateur but you tell us How Amateur Radio Should Be. Which is your right of free speech. MISTAKE. ERROR. I'm telling the Federal Communications Commission (a U.S. federal government agency) what I think the regulations on GETTING INTO amateur radio "should be." [i.e., my desires] Hey, the government did ask, right? Yup. But, the resident PCTA in here absolutely FORBID comment about getting into amateur radio if one is not already IN amateur radio! It's a "chicken and egg" thing. They are too chicken to argue with those against morse code testing and, if they do, they get egg on their face... Tsk. I could NOT "tell you anything" about amateur radio or anything else if it was against what you wrote in here. You would spend days, weeks, even years arguing over a "discussion" as you did on "age requirements" LONG AFTER I dropped it. :-) Yep, he's on another thread singing "ebony and ivory" about the "anonymizing" nature of Morse Code. Really? I always imagined he had a BAD voice and had to resort to manual morse in order to "sound good." The thing you seem to have trouble with is when others use their right of free speech. Tsk, tsk, I'm USED to heckling, catcalls, booing from the peanut gallery in computer-modem communications. Been doing that since early December, 1984. YOU are one of the hecklers. But Len, Jim is one of the most polite hecklers I've ever seen. I wonder when he'll pull an Al Franken and tackle you? We'll see. I'm not familiar with Franken since his failed half-hour comedy sitcom a few seasons back. Who is "Jimmie-James", Len? An imaginary friend of yours? James P. Micollis, the one whose legal address given to the FCC is at 136 Morningside Circle, Wayne, PA 19087. Are YOU this same "James P. Miccolis?" Answer truthfully. Any false responses will be treated to 23 years of heckling... ;-) He knows who he is and he knows that you're referring to Jim as Jimmie and James. Proof: He answers all such postings. heh heh heh...all the readers in here can SEE that... ALL of them. Even those filings which aren't about amateur radio! :-) Finally! An answer to a straightforward question! Thank you. Tsk, tsk. That ANSWER was clearly given in the Notes on each "score card" posting since the first one. You did not seem to understand it. Why did you keep on asking, keep on asking, keep on asking? Disk record broken? Jim can't handle not being answered. He is too important to be ignored. El Jefe muy importante! But I, Jim/N2EY, am simply asking questions about your 'scorecard' process, and pointing out the *potential* for inaccuracy. Tsk, tsk, tsk. The plain simple fact is that I am giving you ANSWERS to stupid questions whose answers were in plain sight in every "score card" posting I've done. It's all in the "fine print," even though usenet makes it all the same font size. You're right...and Jimmie keeps sticking his font in his mouth... That sort of thing seems to really bother you, Len. Poor baby. You keep asking all these inane questions. Why? Are you afraid of the RESULTS of the opinions of the "amateur community" being against your amateur Beliefs? Sure seems that way. Only Christian Belief Systems are open to redicule. All others are sacred. It's sad to see a seminary kick-out behave that way... :-( Tsk, tsk, tsk. After the tens of thousands of whiny, petulant words, accusations, and implications in HERE, you can't even make ONE filing on WT Docket 05-235 on MORSE CODE TESTING?!? :-) Must not be important to Jim. True. He likes to sit in HERE and heckle to his heart's content! Tsk, tsk, tsk. After the tens of thousands of whiny, petulant words, accusations, and implications in HERE, you can't even make ONE filing on WT Docket 05-235 on MORSE CODE TESTING?!? True enough. Maybe "Mr. Insider" has a "private ear" at the FCC? 3. The attitude towards morse code testing in the U.S. amateur community has been CHANGING all along...AWAY from the old, Old, OLD standards and practices. That seems to **** you off greatly and makes you petulant, whiny, and accusatory. Tsk. I think I'll study up and pass Extra before Jim's lack of support allows the ARS to be watered down even more. I'm gonna be an Extra-lite before it becomes and Extra-minus so I can brag about how good I used to be. Hi! Sounds like a Plan! :-) Here's another solution, Len: If you don't want commentary on things you post, don't post them. Tsk, tsk, tsk. You are telling me to SHUT UP! [but are attempting to disguise it with uncivil "civil phrases"] Yep. You juss got towld to "Shut Up!" Right ON! All this "tif for tat." Can't keep up. Jim must be retired now, too. Either that or he spends ALL his time in front of a computer screen. The other night he was up till nearly midnight, east coast time, busy busy busy with message making. Hey! Maybe if Dudly finds his WF orgy partner, he can get her sister to snack up with Jimmie? :-) ...or even her brother? :-) Ah, the mental pictures that evokes! Heh heh heh heh. bit bit |
Scorecard on WT Docket 05-235
Scorecard in the NCTA v. PCTA Amateur Opinions on NPRM 05-143:
As of 31 Oct 05, WT Docket 05-235 Comments on Test Element 1 Elimination/Retention tabulation: ALL to Date Since FR Notice -------------- --------------- Grand Total 3599 1617 Indeterminate (note 1) 232 119 Value for Percentages 2367 1498 Against NPRM (note 2) 1100 [32.67%] 541 [36.11%] For NPRM (note 3) 1679 [49.87%] 643 [42.92%] Test Extra Only (note 4) 588 [17.46%] 314 [20.96%] Tabulation in agreement with FCC ECFS as of 1 AM EDT 1 Nov 05. Notes: Notice of NPRM 05-143 appeared in Federal Register for 31 August and established official end of Comments as 31 October 2005 and official end of Replies to Comments as 14 November 2005. The left column indicates totals for ALL dates. Right column indicates all totals beginning 31 August 2005 to day of this scorecard. It is unknown whether or not the FCC will consider Comments entered prior to 31 August 2005, hence the two column format used here. Fixed-font spacing used throughout. 1. Includes duplicate postings from same individual, "joke" or "test" entries which do not have a valid address, or polemicizing a personal pet peeve which has nothing to do with the NPRM, individuals not understanding the scope and purpose of the NPRM, two foreign resident submissions, and six who were commenting on another matter having nothing to do with amateur radio regulations. 2. Includes only those who are whole-heartedly AGAINST the NPRM and against dropping any code testing. 3. Includes only those who are whole-heartedly FOR the NPRM and the abolition of the morse code test. NPRM itself (first docket document on 15 July) is counted as a "for." 4. These are "in-betweeners" who wish to retain the code test for the "highest" class (Extra) but will accept eliminating the code test for other classes. Percentages are calculated from Grand Totals less Indeterminates. This date is the last official day for Comments. There may be additional entries made for 31 October by the FCC at a later date. Official end of Replies to Comments is 14 November. Stay tuned...the future of U.S. amateur radio is being made, like it or not. |
Scorecard on WT Docket 05-235
|
Scorecard on WT Docket 05-235
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: Did you think someone ELSE bothered to read ALL the filings on WT Docket 05-235 and compile a day-by-day tabulation of them? I don't think that. I know it's true. I've seen the compilation done by someone else and it's more informative than yours. WHO else, Jimmie? A licensed radio amateur with experience in the field. Somebody whose methods of analyzing the comments may be much more accurate than yours. You are begining to sound like Dudly the Imposter in here, always NON-specific but alleging you "know" someone else. The information is available to all who will look for it. Easier to access than ECFS. You've claimed years and years of experience in "computer-modem communications", yet you can't find it? I am surprised. You've never been a radio amateur but you tell us How Amateur Radio Should Be. Which is your right of free speech. MISTAKE. ERROR. It's not your right of free speech? I'm telling the Federal Communications Commission (a U.S. federal government agency) what I think the regulations on GETTING INTO amateur radio "should be." [i.e., my desires] How does your posting a 'scorecard' *here* tell the FCC anything, Len? Your posts *here* are full of your ideas about How Amateur Radio Should Be. Your comments to FCC are full of your ideas about How Amateur Radio Should Be. By definition. Tsk. I could NOT "tell you anything" about amateur radio or anything else if it was against what you wrote in here. Posting is telling everyone who reads your words. They don't have to agree with what you tell them, but you're telling them just the same. So you've already told me and others a lot about amateur radio - and a lot of other things. The truth of what you've told is a different issue... You would spend days, weeks, even years arguing over a "discussion" as you did on "age requirements" LONG AFTER I dropped it. :-) If you had really "dropped it", there would be no discussion.... You've spent most of a decade on usenet arguing against a simple test for a license in a radio service with which you have no involvement. That's your right, of course, but it is kind of odd behavior. You must be very invested *emotionally*... The thing you seem to have trouble with is when others use their right of free speech. Tsk, tsk, I'm USED to heckling, catcalls, booing from the peanut gallery in computer-modem communications. Been doing that since early December, 1984. You've been doing heckling, catcalls, and booing from the peanut gallery in computer-modem communications since 1984, eh? After all, you said you've been doing it since early December 1984... One would think that with all that experience you could find the 'scorecard' of which I wrote. YOU are one of the hecklers. How? Show us your definition of "heckler" and how it applies. The definition I've always seen describes a "heckler" as someone from the audience who calls out to an onstage performer with derogatory remarks and insults. I don't do that. If anyone in rrap is the master of derogatory remarks, it's you, Len. But more important is the fact that you're not an onstage performer here. This is a completely different sort of venue, where opposing opinions (like mine) aren't "heckling". Who is "Jimmie-James", Len? An imaginary friend of yours? James P. Micollis, the one whose legal address given to the FCC is at 136 Morningside Circle, Wayne, PA 19087. No one by that name lives at this address. I live there. Are YOU this same "James P. Miccolis?" What do you think? Perhaps you could check your spelling... ALL of them. Even those filings which aren't about amateur radio! :-) Finally! An answer to a straightforward question! Thank you. Tsk, tsk. That ANSWER was clearly given in the Notes on each "score card" posting since the first one. No, it wasn't. You did not seem to understand it. The notes are not clear. Tsk, tsk...I'm NOT "making claims." Yes, you are, Len. You're claiming your 'scorecard' is accurate but you won't answer questions about how it is prepared. 1. The "answers" were ALREADY POSTED in each of the "score cards" I put up via Google. Well before you "asked" for the first one. Those "answers" aren't clear. 2. You've gotten answers to your (petulant, whiny, accusatory) "questions" in here...but you sure as hell don't LIKE them! That may be changing, which is a good thing. Who appoint you "judge" of what is "a good thing" or a "bad thing?" Same person who made *you* the judge. 3. The attitude towards morse code testing in the U.S. amateur community has been CHANGING all along...AWAY from the old, Old, OLD standards and practices. Really? How do you know? Compare the percentages of commenters supporting Morse Code testing in 1998-1999 with those of the current NPRM. How much difference is there *really*? And even *your* 'scorecard' shows the majority support at least some code testing, and oppose its complete elimination (as proposed in the NPRM). How about that? Your desires are in the *minority*, Len! You claim: "The attitude towards morse code testing in the U.S. amateur community has been CHANGING all along..." but when it comes to the actual comments even your flawed counting method shows the majority does *not* support the NPRM. That seems to **** you off greatly and makes you petulant, whiny, and accusatory. Tsk. I'm not the one yelling and calling people names, Len. You are. Here's another solution, Len: If you don't want commentary on things you post, don't post them. Tsk, tsk, tsk. You are telling me to SHUT UP! [but are attempting to disguise it with uncivil "civil phrases"] Not at all. I'm simply offering a solution to your problem. You can post all you want - but that means you'll have to put up with opposing commentary. Deal with it. You seem to want everyone to just accept what you write here without question, even though you don't behave that way towards others. Doesn't work that way. ERROR! MISTAKE!! Sorry, dearie, but it DOES work that way. What you want is different from the way things actually work, Len. You may *want* everyone to just accept what you write here, but they may not. Tsk, tsk, tsk. Did God appoint YOU as "judge" of "what works" and "doesn't work" in here? [He didn't tell me that this morning] Do you have a Certificate of Licensure (suitable for framing) from a Divine Authority granting you "judgement" capability on who posts what? I don't think so... I'm just telling you how it is, Len. That seems to unduly upset you. Tsk. If it bothers you so much, just stop reading this thread! [easy solution to your apparent problem] You are the one getting upset, Len. Not me. "Upset?" No. Yes. You're all worked up - it comes through clearly in your mistakes, name calling, shouting, insults, uncivil behavior, etc. YOU are NOT in the FCC. YOU are NOT on the ARRL BoD. Neither are you, Len. That doesn't explain why YOU constantly pretend to be "judge" and try to make nasty to others who state opinions contrary to what YOU find "objectionable." "make nasty"? How? Looks to me like you consider any disagreement with your views to be "making nasty". There are NO RULES in "score card" postings other than what the poster places in public view. I have done that. Since the first "score card" posting. Your "rules" don't explain a lot of things, Len. The Notes given with each "card" are clear and comprehensive. No, they're not. "Asking for clarification" of yours is nothing more than adult- language puerile petulant HECKLING done for malicious intent of your own. How is asking for clarification "heckling"? Nobody checks your work. *I* check my work. OK then - nobody *else* checks your work. YOU don't like it, go do your OWN scoring. Is that a command? Do they show up as a count of 1 or 5 on the tally of "for" filings? Tsk, tsk...you understand very poorly. Incorrect. I understand very well. You explain very poorly. Poor baby. Always trying to make yourself the "superior." I don't have to "try", Len ;-) You don't get the answers you WANT, so you bitch and whine and get all snarly about "poor explanations!" Sorry, but the Nun of the Above can't elevate herself to Mother Superior. Do they show up as a count of 1 or 5 on the tally of "for" filings? I've already said I count ALL the filings. In other words, your own comments and reply comments are counted as 5 filings *for* the NPRM, not 1. Also means you're counting the multiple filings of others, including one person who was "for" the NPRM and filed no less than 17 filings. Tsk, tsk, tsk...my Notes said that DUPLICATES would be counted as "Indeterminate" category and not used for the Percentage figures. Clearly. Not "clearly", because you don't define what a "duplicate" really is. If the same person files comments that are not identical, do you count them as duplicates? Or are they separate comments and counted as such? Your tally indicates that you don't count nonidentical filings by the same person as duplicates. The duplicate filer For the NPRM gives his name as Vincent Garcell. 17 filings! Another one Against the NPRM, with 13 total filings, is Dwayne Sparks. How about Leonard H. Anderson, who has 6 filings? Do they show up as a count of 1 or 6 on the tally of "for" filings? I think you count them as 6 in the "for" column because they're not identical and hence not duplicates. The ECFS totals ALL of the filings in one Docket on any Search. You can select the type of filings, though. You could just look at Comments rather than all filings. It doesn't discriminate against filings which aren't even about amateur radio! Perhaps you ought to bitch and whine to the FCC and Tell Them What To Do! An alternative compilation that I have seen indicates multiple filings by the same person. Last time I looked, multiple filings by those "for" the NPRM exceeded multiple filings by those "against" it by at least 32 comments. That's about 1%. Hey, Dudly II, WHOSE "alternative compilation?" Who is "Dudly II", Len? WHOSE. Where is this alleged "alternative compilation" to be found? On the website of the person who compiled it. Can't you find it? Why am I supposed to follow the "rules" of this "alternate compilation?" You don't have to, Len. But your scorecard would be more accurate if you did. So your counting method overstates the support for the NPRM by at least that percentage. Well then, go BITCH to the FCC and NTIA (who govern part of the U.S. Internet) that I am being terribly "dishonest" and have me thrown off the 'net or something! :-) Why? You're the source of the inaccuracy, so I'm telling you. Can't you deal with an opposing opinion? Can't you accept change and go with a better method? You post your results to four significant figures, yet if your counting method is as described above, it's inaccurate by at least 1% from that one source of error. You make a lot of noise about amateur radio but you've never been a radio amateur. And from all appearances you're never going to get an amateur radio license. As you've pointed out (more than once), the "score card" is MINE, isn't it? :-) If so, then I make up the rules, don't I? :-) You don't like the results? Don't read the "score card." What you're really saying is that you cannot tolerate opposing opinions, questions, or facts that contradict your assertions. WRONG. Then why do you carry on so about a few questions and observations? Why all the name calling and diversion rather than answering some questions? In the first few weeks of posting the "score card," the only REAL questions appearing in the threads were those of accessing the ECFS and how to file. By others. And answered by another besides myself. So? After the "score card" format change due to LATE notice in the Federal Register, suddenly YOU appear with all the allegations of inhonesty, "questions" on procedure, etc., etc., etc. :-) Is there a time limit on newsgroup responses? YOUR whole purpose with those "questions" seems to be with your on-going dissatisfaction with ANYTHING I post in here. Not "anything", Len. Just some of your inaccuracies and mistakes. Can't you take an opposing opinion? There is the question of "motivation" for your harrassment. Dear me, now an opposing opinion and some facts are "harrassment"? Why are you so OBSESSED with trying to toss me off? I'm not trying to "toss you off" anything, Len. I'm just trying to discuss the accuracy of your "scorecard". But you seem to have enormous trouble dealing with opposing opinions. The results of the NPRM and its final Report and Order will NOT AFFECT YOU, will it? It may. Changes in the rules of the amateur radio service may have a profound effect on me, because I'm an active licensed radio amateur. Then seek MENTAL counseling. Why? There is NOTHING to deny present- day privileges to ALREADY-LICENSED U.S. radio amateurs in NPRM 05-143. There are NO statements of ALREADY-LICENSED amateurs having to do a single test or examination in order to continue their existing privileges. That's true, but it's not the point. YOUR only problem is MENTAL. Really? You should learn to accept change, not try to maintain old, trite, tired Beliefs of long ago. Why should I accept changes that are unnecessary? Why should I accept changes that are detrimental to the Amateur Radio Service? Why should something be discarded just because it's old? There's very little chance that changes in the rules of the amateur radio service will have *any* effect on you, because you're not a licensed radio amateur, and it doesn't appear that you'll ever be one. The morse code test WILL AFFECT new licensees. And existing ones. But it almost certainly won't affect you, Len. You're not an existing licensee nor are you likely to be a new one. You have your "affects" totally BACKWARD. Not at all. On top of that, you've tried more snide uncivil "civility" in my "motivation" towards getting any amateur radio license. How? It's quite obvious you don't want such a license and will probably never get one. NO ONE is required to toady up to some already-licensed U.S. radio amateur and HAVE to state "motivation." NOBODY. You don't have to state your "motivation". But it does seem odd that you won't state why you're so obsessed with a license test for a license you don't seem to want, and which has no effect on you at all. FCC can also decide to change license privileges, subbands, etc., all of which can have a profound affect on those who actually operate in the licensed service. NPRM 05-143 is solely about the MORSE CODE TEST, Jimmie. FCC isn't limited to the terms of an NPRM. Look at what happened in 1999. They proposed four license classes but the R&O reduced it to three. The TEST. The TEST does NOT affect those ALREADY LICENSED. Yes, it does. If a change affects the amateur radio service itself, it affects those already licensed. The TEST affects those GETTING INTO U.S. amateur radio. But not only them. And since you're clearly not one of them, why do you care so much? The ONLY "profound effect" [sic, not 'affect'] on those ALREADY IN amateur radio is MENTAL. Incorrect. Each ALREADY LICENSED amateur will have to work that out by themselves. The FCC is NOT chartered as a mental correction aid agency. Poor baby. All confused mentally and refusing to admit it! Not me, Len. Some days back, you posted a description of your experiences with cb radio back in the late 1950s and early 1960s. You told us how you installed a manufactured cb transceiver and antenna in your car and used it. You told us the performance was *excellent* - for about four years. Then it wasn't so excellent anymore. Here's that description again: "One of the first signs of that outside amateur radio was the USA's creation of Class C and D CB in 1958. NO test of any kind, just a Restricted Radiotelephone license form needed for anyone to use the 22 channels (23rd shared with radio control). Excellent in large urban areas before the offshore products appeared about four years later and the trucking industry started buying them." Where did the excellence go, Len? It went to the Chevrolet auto dealer in Canoga Park, CA, as a trade-in. Your cb radio was traded in at a car dealership? It was a 1953 Austin-Healey sports car with an all-aluminum body (excellent ground plane). Terrible for magmounts, though. That "Healey" got me an introduction to my first wife. She persuaded me to buy the replacement 1961 Impala Convertible. She was diagnosed with cancer soon after and died after a year. I am sorry for your loss. While the Johnson Viking "Messenger" CB performed well in the Impala, I rather lost interest in both personal radio use and that car after that. Or do you "see" such an attitude, being the compleat morseman you are? Here's what I "saw", Len: "One of the first signs of that outside amateur radio was the USA's creation of Class C and D CB in 1958. NO test of any kind, just a Restricted Radiotelephone license form needed for anyone to use the 22 channels (23rd shared with radio control). Excellent in large urban areas before the offshore products appeared about four years later and the trucking industry started buying them." That's from your post on the subject, a few days ago. No mention of a trade-in or your first wife. The excellence you wrote about was cb. And the fact remains that cb quickly went downhill in the late 1960s and early 1970s - about the same time frame as what you describe. You can read your original post he http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r...e=source&hl=en There, aren't you HAPPY over having a newsgroup "opponent" go through difficulties? No. Not at all. Maybe you want an ice-cold emotionless set of numbers of performance of the Viking Messenger now (I still have that old radio)? Why? It still meets manufacturers' (and FCC) specifications. But I don't think you use it. Your '53 Healey was a classic sports car. Maybe not the fastest or most powerful thing on four wheels but definitely a classic - and classy too. Fun in the tradition of a Triumph or MG. I am somewhat surprised that you still have the Johnson Viking Messenger, though. The thing has *vacuum tubes*, right? (At least the early Messengers did). Of course the Johnson Viking Messenger is interesting from an historical POV because it was such a departure for the company. Instead of a big desk-crushing VFO transmitter, they built a compact lightweight transceiver of pretty good quality. And it still works! So I guess it's not so surprising that for more than 40 years you've held onto one of the smallest Johnsons ever produced. Do you see how the same could happen to amateur radio? NOT at all. How can you can guarantee that what happened to cb cannot happen to amateur radio? 1. The 11 m amateur band of 1958 was taken away from amateurs in the USA then, 47 years ago. It (and some other services) were allocated to use part of it. That's right. FCC made a big mistake doing that - one they're still trying to deal with. 2. NPRM 05-235 is about the MORSE CODE TEST for a United States radio amateur license examination. That has NOTHING to do with "CB." Not directly. But there is a definite connection. 3. You try to connect (1) and (2) and there is NO possible connection. Of course there's a possible connection. If the loss of the Morse Code test causes amateur radio to become more like cb, it will have a profound effect on *existing* amateur radio operators. If the amateur bands become like the cb channels, existing amateurs will be affected. Maybe you want the amateur bands to become like the cb channels.. I'm not saying that *will* happen, just that it *could* happen. Existing licensees can be profoundly affected by rules changes. Only MENTALLY. Nope. The effects can be much more. Do you want 40 meters to sound like the 40 cb channels? Their "radio world" would come to an end if morse code testing stopped! Not mine. I'll go right on enjoying Morse Code and Amateur Radio as long as possible. Since your are not a radio amateur and not likely to become one regardless of rules changes, the NPRM results don't really affect you. Tsk, tsk, tsk. I'm "not likely to become one regardless of rules changes?!?" That's right. It's very unlikely that you'll ever become a licensed radio amateur. Your behavior proves it. So the only way the elimination of the Morse Code test will affect you is mentally and emotionally. Now you pretend to "know" the future as well as "motivation!" I'm saying it's very unlikely, that's all. NPRM 05-235 is about MORSE CODE TESTING, Jimmie, NOT just about ME. The point about eliminating the morse code test, other than making the regulations better, Who made you the judge about what is "better", Len? is to give ALL those interested in amateur radio the OPPORTUNITY to get into it without that old, outdated, arbitrary manual test for morsemanship. All those interested have had the opportunity to "get into" amateur radio without a Morse Code test since February 14, 1991. But you haven't taken advantage of that opportunity, Len. Nor of the opportunity that has existed since 1990 to get full privileges with only a 5 wpm code test. There will be NO effect on operating privileges of already- licensed amateurs due to elimination of the morse code test. NONE Can you guarantee that? And it's not just operating privileges that are effects of such a change. Here's an analogy: You've told us of your house on Lanark Street - how much you paid for it, how much it's worth now, the nearby gated community, etc. I've never been to your house but I've been in the area. It's a safe bet that your area is mostly single-family houses built after WW2, with little or no commercial development. Also a safe bet that while there may not be many CC&Rs, the zoning probably prevents much diversity of development on your street. Little boxes on the hillside (actually at the foot of the hill...) Now suppose someone bought some properties near you - say next door or across the street. And suppose they sought to tear down the existing houses and build new ones that would change things on Lanark Street. Suppose they wanted to put up multifamily townhomes, some as rentals and some as condos. Some retail space too. Of course that would probably take a zoning change. Would you support and accept that sort of change, Len? After all, it would give a lot more people the opportunity to get into your neighborhood without the old, outdated, arbitrary necessity of a huge down payment and massive mortgage. It would be an end to the old arbitrary requirements of single-family houses, etc. It would not directly affect *your* house - you're already there, established, etc. The new rules would not touch your house. You wouldn't give up anything except your mental image of the neighborhood. Would you oppose or support that change? Or suppose a licensed radio amateur moved in next door and wanted to put up a few 70 foot towers with big beams (like K8MN's). Would that be OK with you? Judging by how often you call people by other than their legal names, it's clear you have a lot of difficulty in that area. Poor baby. "It's clear" you have some terrible, gnawing dispute with anything I write in here. :-) Y'know, Len, you seem to miss the point on a lot of things. No. All the readers in here have gotten YOUR "point." If they don't agree with you, you blabber out lines and lines and lines of misdirections, personal allegations, dredge up old, old arguments to attempt re-arguing them again. Your postings here exceed mine in number and length, Len. You're describing yourself, not me. You're really emotionally invested in rrap.... NPRM 05-143 is NOT about U.S. amateur radio license "age requirements." Neither was the previous restructuring NPRM. Yet you included recommendations in your reply comments recommending such a limit. I made that SUGGESTION on page 14 of my 14-page Reply to Comments of Deignan, shown in the ECFS as of 13 January 1999. Recommendation. And that NPRM wasn't about age requirements at all. Plus Reply Comments are about replying to someone else's comments, *not* about bringing up new issues for consideration long after the comment period was over. In fact, your *only* filing on that NPRM was those reply comments, wasn't it? And despite your years of experience in computer-modem communications, you couldn't manage to submit via ECFS back then, even though thousands of us figured it out. That was over six years ago. So what? You repeatedly bring up stuff that's much older and even less relevant. I have NOT pursued that since except for the accusations leveled at me in here. What "accusations", Len? The facts were presented and you confirmed them. You even accused ARRL and some VEs of fraud and dishonest over the licensing of some young amateurs. You weren't at the VE session, don't know any of the people involved, and yet you accused others of fraud. And you claimed that because, in *your* opinion, 6-year-olds could not understand the material on the test, no one under the age of 14 should be allowed to hold an amateur radio license. That's a fur piece from "dropping it". The "Restructuring" Report and Order came out in late December, 1999, as FCC 99-412. So? I have NOT pressed that point with the FCC since...except YOU have to drag it out and drag it out and drag it out until that poor dead horse has been hammered into a stain on this old highway. "old highway"? The "information superhighway"? Truth is, you've repeatedly defended your position on the issue. You didn't "drop it". Now you *could* come out and say it was a bad idea and that there should be no age requirements for an amateur radio license. But I doubt you'll do that. "Sweetums," Who is "Sweetums", Len? you want to rehash OLD stuff? Why not? You do it all the time. You DO? Okay, I'll try to hound you about NEVER serving your country in the military You do that already. I've never claimed any military service. every time you make some pontifical remark showing your "military expertise." That would be never, Len. Because I don't claim "expertise" at anything. I do know a few things, though, and it really seems to tick you off when one of your mistakes is pointed out. Like the in-service dates of Soviet Bear bombers.... But you have "a problem" with 13 year olds getting amateur radio licenses. No. Then you're saying there should not be any age requirement for an amateur radio license. I have a "problem" with mental 13-year-olds in here posing as adults It's not all about you, Len. and who ask all sorts of inane "questions" (that were already answered a priori) and make all kinds of accusations...all of which may be summed up as HECKLING. Not by any reasonable definition of heckling. I'm not the one recommending an age requirement for a US amateur radio license. You are. I DID. I dropped it after 13 January 1999. Yet you kept on defending it. That was OVER SIX YEARS ago. Your defense of it is a lot more recent. You are STILL OFFENDED over that! Not me. I just think it's a really bad idea. So...maybe you LIKE talking to 13-year-olds on the radio using radiotelegraphy that makes all age clues meaningless? Why, yes! I enjoy using Morse Code to communicate with hams of all ages. I've worked 10 year olds on Morse Code and 90+ year olds too. I've Elmered hams of all ages, too. What matters to me is the person on the other end of the QSO, what they have to say, and how much fun the whole process is. The other ham's age is of vanishing importance to me. Does that satisfy some internal desires of yours? Working other hams is a lot of fun for me. This weekend is the CW SS. I intend to work a lot of other hams using Morse Code. For fun. "I'm just asking some questions." Yep. Is that wrong? That's right. Your postings are fair game for comment and question by others. They are not somehow sacred and unimpeachable. They are not immune to question and/or debate. Wow! You've FINALLY gotten the picture, Judge! :-) Tsk, tsk. You forgot to add in the part where, if YOU ask someone something they MUST answer or you will make tens of thousands of words in messaging if you don't get the answers you WANT! :-) That's what *you* do, Len. Poor Jimmie? Double-degreed "engineer" and you can't MAKE ENOUGH to spend over $100 on a rig? :-) It really *is* all about money to you, Len. Oh, oh, the commie sympathizer comes out of his closet in PA? "Commie sympathizer"? That's almost funny! You really are clueless if you'd call me that. Well, that's a sure indication YOU don't have as much money as YOU want. :-) Who does? Do you? I have enough. That's what's important. I'm also very wealthy in things that cannot be bought. Yup...and it shows you HATE professionals for some reason. Not me. I am one! Odd, because you claim to BE a professional in electronics. Where? I am a professional in electrical engineering. There's a lot more to EE than "electronics". Us readers don't know WHERE since you won't mention your employer...not here, not to the FCC. Why should I? Would it make any difference? Or would it simply be something else for you to insult and denigrate? Perhaps it's time to repost your classic "sphincters post", where you denigrated and insulted the military service experiences of a US Coast Guard radio operator. I'm "all about money?" I didn't say that. I wrote: "It really *is* all about money to you, Len." And apparently, it is. Your behavior confirms it. Not really. Got some. Spent some. Dropped $1100 last week at CompUSA-GoodGuys for a 27" HD LCD flat panel TV this week and it works just dandy. See? There you go. Gotta mention what you bought and how much it cost. You sure seem to be one of those people who consider "net worth" and "personal worth" to be synonymous.... [it doesn't do morse code so I guess you wouldn't be interested in it] Doesn't make the programs any better, though. Mostly JUNK on TV... I haven't made a single cent posting in here or filing with the FCC (negative cash flow there). Someone pay YOU to post in here? Someone pay you NOT to file with the FCC? I want the FCC to make NPRM 05-143 into a Report and Order...without changes to the basic precepts in the NPRM. Why? Those changes won't affect you. They MAY. Very unlikely. They WILL affect all those who desire to enter HF amateur radio without taking a code test. So? You're not one of them. Other than mentally, emotionally, how will the removal of the morse code test affect YOU? If it damages the amateur radio service, it affects me. It won't remove any of your operating privileges, won't make you re-test. I'm not afraid of any retest, Len. You seem to be afraid of any test, though. Or any question. |
Scorecard on WT Docket 05-235
Scorecard in the NCTA v. PCTA Amateur Opinions on NPRM 05-143:
As of 31 Oct 05, WT Docket 05-235 Comments on Test Element 1 Elimination/Retention tabulation: [corrected version of previous posting for 31 October due to 81 additional entries made by FCC on 1 November] ALL to Date Since FR Notice -------------- --------------- Grand Total 3680 1698 Indeterminate (note 1) 240 127 Value for Percentages 3440 1571 Against NPRM (note 2) 1133 [32.94%] 574 [36.54%] For NPRM (note 3) 1697 [49.33%] 661 [42.08%] Test Extra Only (note 4) 610 [17.73%] 336 [21.39%] Tabulation in agreement with FCC ECFS as of 9 PM EDT 1 Nov 05. Notes: Notice of NPRM 05-143 appeared in Federal Register for 31 August and established official end of Comments as 31 October 2005 and official end of Replies to Comments as 14 November 2005. The left column indicates totals for ALL dates. Right column indicates all totals beginning 31 August 2005 to day of this scorecard. It is unknown whether or not the FCC will consider Comments entered prior to 31 August 2005, hence the two column format used here. Fixed-font spacing used throughout. 1. Includes duplicate postings from same individual, "joke" or "test" entries which do not have a valid address, or polemicizing a personal pet peeve which has nothing to do with the NPRM, individuals not understanding the scope and purpose of the NPRM, two foreign resident submissions, and six who were commenting on another matter having nothing to do with amateur radio regulations. 2. Includes only those who are whole-heartedly AGAINST the NPRM and against dropping any code testing. 3. Includes only those who are whole-heartedly FOR the NPRM and the abolition of the morse code test. NPRM itself (first docket document on 15 July) is counted as a "for." 4. These are "in-betweeners" who wish to retain the code test for the "highest" class (Extra) but will accept eliminating the code test for other classes. Percentages are calculated from Grand Totals less Indeterminates. This date is the last official day for Comments. There may be additional entries made for 31 October by the FCC at a later date. Official end of Replies to Comments is 14 November. The future of U.S. amateur radio is being made, like it or not. |
Scorecard on WT Docket 05-235
wrote:
wrote: I am somewhat surprised that you still have the Johnson Viking Messenger, though. The thing has *vacuum tubes*, right? (At least the early Messengers did). Of course the Johnson Viking Messenger is interesting from an historical POV because it was such a departure for the company. Instead of a big desk-crushing VFO transmitter, they built a compact lightweight transceiver of pretty good quality. And it still works! So I guess it's not so surprising that for more than 40 years you've held onto one of the smallest Johnsons ever produced. If a tiny Johnson is what you have, a tiny Johnson is what you use. You have to work with what you've got. I'm sure that Len's Johnson has been gathering dust for some years now though. Dave K8MN |
Scorecard on WT Docket 05-235
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: Did you think someone ELSE bothered to read ALL the filings on WT Docket 05-235 and compile a day-by-day tabulation of them? I don't think that. I know it's true. I've seen the compilation done by someone else and it's more informative than yours. WHO else, Jimmie? A licensed radio amateur with experience in the field. Somebody whose methods of analyzing the comments may be much more accurate than yours. Tsk, tsk, tsk...another Dudly type posting...you "know someone" who is "better" yet won't reveal this expert? :-) What's to "analyze?" It's called READING, Jimmie. Even children can do that! :-) Let's see...up to the end of 31 October there were 3,680 filings of which 240 were of the "indeterminate" kind. That's about 6.5 percent (only two digits used, can't use any "illusions of accuracy" with you, can we?). The other three categories were pretty well UN-ambiguous on deciding either YES to the NPRM, NO to the NPRM, or "let's keep it for Extra." You need "experts in analysis" to divine the "true meaning" of those filings? I guess so...anything to try your damndest to fudge, alter the percentages in favor of pro-code. Tsk. By the way, I don't know if the FCC uses "percentages" or not. I used them to get a clearer picture of the total of opinions. You dislike that. Obviously, since the comment period start showed that MORE were in favor of the NPRM than against. You are begining to sound like Dudly the Imposter in here, always NON-specific but alleging you "know" someone else. The information is available to all who will look for it. It really KILLS you to yield the website doesn't it? :-) Easier to access than ECFS. You've claimed years and years of experience in "computer-modem communications", yet you can't find it? I am surprised. I'm not surprised that you take your attitude, Jimmie. I started this "computer-modem" think in early December, 1984. The Internet didn't go public until 1991. Have you seen any registry of domain names recently? No? You think it is "easy" to find something specific even with a search engine? You must. Or you are so damn petulant about this that you have to sit in here and heckle, heckle, heckle about minutae just to satisfy your own wounded whatever... I'm telling the Federal Communications Commission (a U.S. federal government agency) what I think the regulations on GETTING INTO amateur radio "should be." [i.e., my desires] How does your posting a 'scorecard' *here* tell the FCC anything, Len? As an attachment to THREE filings on WT Docket 05-235, Jimmie. Lord knows few can tell YOU anything you don't want to hear! Your posts *here* are full of your ideas about How Amateur Radio Should Be. No. Most of my postings in this newsgroup are in response to the petulant little "I know what is best for ham radio" control-freaks, most of whom seem to be mighty macho morsemen. Your comments to FCC are full of your ideas about How Amateur Radio Should Be. MOST of my filings to the FCC have been about MORSE CODE TESTING, Jimmie. The code test is essentially about GETTING INTO amateur radio HF privileges. Long ago I started communications on HF without a single requirement to know or test for morse code and did it LEGALLY. You've never fully explained why the artificiality of testing for morsemanship is so damn necessary for amateur operations (you think you have but you are only parroting your conditioned thinking imposed by long-ago morsemen). By definition. YOUR "definition." You do NOT tell me about "definitions." Tsk. I could NOT "tell you anything" about amateur radio or anything else if it was against what you wrote in here. Posting is telling everyone who reads your words. They don't have to agree with what you tell them, but you're telling them just the same. Poor BABY! Just who the hell do you think YOUR postings are then? Messages from God Almighty? :-) So you've already told me and others a lot about amateur radio - and a lot of other things. The truth of what you've told is a different issue... Awwwww....you heard things YOU DIDN'T WANT TO HEAR! Boo-hoo. You would spend days, weeks, even years arguing over a "discussion" as you did on "age requirements" LONG AFTER I dropped it. :-) If you had really "dropped it", there would be no discussion.... Tsk, tsk. You come along every once in a while and BRING IT TO THE SURFACE AGAIN (in rather sulpherous phrasing) and *I* am the one "bringing it up?" BWAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!! You've spent most of a decade on usenet arguing against a simple test for a license in a radio service with which you have no involvement. That's your right, of course, but it is kind of odd behavior. You must be very invested *emotionally*... Good grief...you aren't going into the MOTIVATIONAL aspects are you? Like Davie Heil does when he tries to find some kind of "tool" to rationalize his snarling? You've been doing heckling, catcalls, and booing from the peanut gallery in computer-modem communications since 1984, eh? No, sweetums, I said I am used to receiving heckling, catcalls, and booing from the peanut gallery. I still am. Here you are doing just that. I was a Sysop on one BBS, a co-sysop on two others, and a regular public board moderator on Lynzie's Motherboard BBS (a social BBS headquartered in North Hollywood, CA). Lynzie Flynn Zimmerman organized monthly get-togethers of all the members at the 94th Aerosquadron Restaurant next to Van Nuys airport in the San Fernando Valley. Fun thing to do, get together socially with all the folks one "knew" only by their messages. One would think that with all that experience you could find the 'scorecard' of which I wrote. Tsk, tsk, tsk...you still want to play games, ey? :-) Why don't you just reveal this "website" and be done with it? If it is "so much better" than what I've done, then others will obviously see so! There you go, automatic triumph for your nasty little petulance! :-) YOU are one of the hecklers. How? Show us your definition of "heckler" and how it applies. See all your "messages" in THIS thread! :-) The definition I've always seen describes a "heckler" as someone from the audience who calls out to an onstage performer with derogatory remarks and insults. "All the world's a stage"...and Jimmie is the only one in the "audience!" :-) Gosh, Jimmie, I could provide a "definition" of Asshole and little would change... :-) I don't do that. If anyone in rrap is the master of derogatory remarks, it's you, Len. Jimmie is NEVER wrong because Jimmie is PRO-CODE in extremis. But more important is the fact that you're not an onstage performer here. This is a completely different sort of venue, where opposing opinions (like mine) aren't "heckling". Tsk, tsk, tsk. Your old-style vaudeville "hook" isn't working, Jimmie. Wanna see my AFTRA card? :-) Tsk, tsk. That ANSWER was clearly given in the Notes on each "score card" posting since the first one. No, it wasn't. Yes, it was. You did not seem to understand it. The notes are not clear. Yes, they are. You have an aversion to ANYONE against code testing and can't read straight on any NCTA's postings. Not my problem. 1. The "answers" were ALREADY POSTED in each of the "score cards" I put up via Google. Well before you "asked" for the first one. Those "answers" aren't clear. Then SHOW us "clarity." So far, all you've done is bitch and whine and mewl about in a remarkable display of petulant, peurile juvenility of displeasure with certain folks. Who appoint you "judge" of what is "a good thing" or a "bad thing?" Same person who made *you* the judge. Nobody made ME any "judge," Jimmie. 3. The attitude towards morse code testing in the U.S. amateur community has been CHANGING all along...AWAY from the old, Old, OLD standards and practices. Really? How do you know? I OBSERVE it. It's apparant to anyone with an open mind. You seem to be of a CLOSED mind when it comes to code testing. BWAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!! Compare the percentages of commenters supporting Morse Code testing in 1998-1999 with those of the current NPRM. How much difference is there *really*? Roughly, 1400 more filings. In three months of WT Docket 05-235 there have been 3,680 filings. In the eleven months of WT Docket 98-143 filings there were only about 2,200. I'm not the one yelling and calling people names, Len. You are. Poor BABY! "Yelling?" :-) I turned up the speaker volume full and didn't hear any "yelling." Tsk, tsk, tsk, you are all UPSET about behavior in newsgroups? You don't complain about the rather obvious name-calling done by others. Just me. :-) Offhand, I'd say you are too selective in your fault-finding. Not at all. I'm simply offering a solution to your problem. You can post all you want - but that means you'll have to put up with opposing commentary. Deal with it. I have. :-) Poor baby...it works both ways, doesn't it? You want to do "word fights" like an Internet variation of the "Animal House" food fights? Okay. ["fraternalism!"] What you want is different from the way things actually work, Len. You may *want* everyone to just accept what you write here, but they may not. Tsk, tsk, tsk. All I was doing was a tally of filings on WT Docket 05-235. You hopped in and made this a Cause Celebre' (with oak leaf clusters) of "mistakes"! :-) I'm just telling you how it is, Len. No you ain't. You're "telling it" like what YOU WANT. What you WANT is to have you "superior" to no-coders. You are the one getting upset, Len. Not me. "Upset?" No. Yes. You're all worked up - it comes through clearly in your mistakes, name calling, shouting, insults, uncivil behavior, etc. BWAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!! Sweetums, YOU've been upset over ANY no-coder's messages as long as I've seen your posts in here! YOU are NOT in the FCC. YOU are NOT on the ARRL BoD. Neither are you, Len. That doesn't explain why YOU constantly pretend to be "judge" and try to make nasty to others who state opinions contrary to what YOU find "objectionable." "make nasty"? How? Looks to me like you consider any disagreement with your views to be "making nasty". Sweetums, you are getting LESS "superior" every time you deny YOU ever did anything wrong. :-) There are NO RULES in "score card" postings other than what the poster places in public view. I have done that. Since the first "score card" posting. Your "rules" don't explain a lot of things, Len. Poor baby. Offhand, I'd say you didn't like anyone doing tally sheets of "umbers" like you do with those cribbed "umbers" from another website every month. :-) The Notes given with each "card" are clear and comprehensive. No, they're not. What is this, another schoolyard "nyah-nyah" thing you like? :-) "Asking for clarification" of yours is nothing more than adult- language puerile petulant HECKLING done for malicious intent of your own. How is asking for clarification "heckling"? ...when it's obvious that others opinions in the "amateur community" aren't skewed the way YOU WANT them to be! :-) Nobody checks your work. *I* check my work. OK then - nobody *else* checks your work. UNTRUE. Someone else DOES! I would reveal the name to you except you love to keep such things a pseudo-secret. BWAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!! YOU don't like it, go do your OWN scoring. Is that a command? Whatever. Poor baby, you really ARE so SENSITIVE about criticsm! Poor baby. Always trying to make yourself the "superior." I don't have to "try", Len ;-) Tsk. Nun of the Above elevated herself to Mother Superior? You don't get the answers you WANT, so you bitch and whine and get all snarly about "poor explanations!" Sorry, but the Nun of the Above can't elevate herself to Mother Superior. Do they show up as a count of 1 or 5 on the tally of "for" filings? I didn't see any Nuns voting in WT Docket 05-235. Correct me if I'm wrong on that. Tsk, tsk, tsk...my Notes said that DUPLICATES would be counted as "Indeterminate" category and not used for the Percentage figures. Clearly. Not "clearly", because you don't define what a "duplicate" really is. If the same person files comments that are not identical, do you count them as duplicates? Or are they separate comments and counted as such? Yes and no. Take your choice. Your tally indicates that you don't count nonidentical filings by the same person as duplicates. How do you know? Did you check my work by READING ALL? The duplicate filer For the NPRM gives his name as Vincent Garcell. 17 filings! Another one Against the NPRM, with 13 total filings, is Dwayne Sparks. Sparks is pro-code-test. You make no remark about him. Well, given your attitude towards code testing, you can't give HIM any black marks, can you? :-) How about Leonard H. Anderson, who has 6 filings? Do they show up as a count of 1 or 6 on the tally of "for" filings? I think you count them as 6 in the "for" column because they're not identical and hence not duplicates. The ONLY way you will know FOR SURE is to do your OWN tally, Jimmie. You obviously don't believe a thing I write about my own tally. The ECFS totals ALL of the filings in one Docket on any Search. You can select the type of filings, though. You could just look at Comments rather than all filings. Why are you telling me what to do? Are you wearing your "superior" hat now and, as usual, trying to boss around others? WHOSE. Where is this alleged "alternative compilation" to be found? On the website of the person who compiled it. Can't you find it? Tsk, tsk, tsk, more of this "nyah-nyah" behavior. Childish. Why am I supposed to follow the "rules" of this "alternate compilation?" You don't have to, Len. But your scorecard would be more accurate if you did. Why would it be "more accurate" Jimmie? There, that gives you yet-another area to bitch and whine and go "nyah-nyah" about. :-) Well then, go BITCH to the FCC and NTIA (who govern part of the U.S. Internet) that I am being terribly "dishonest" and have me thrown off the 'net or something! :-) Why? You're the source of the inaccuracy, so I'm telling you. WRONG. I'm accurate. Can't you deal with an opposing opinion? I can and have. Right now I'm dealing with a whiny little kid's message about "secret compilations" and "inaccuracies"! Can't you accept change and go with a better method? I didn't know there was an OBLIGATION to follow your orders! What you're really saying is that you cannot tolerate opposing opinions, questions, or facts that contradict your assertions. WRONG. Then why do you carry on so about a few questions and observations? Why all the name calling and diversion rather than answering some questions? Wow, you really ARE reverting to a nasty little kid, aincha? :-) Is there a time limit on newsgroup responses? Evidently YOU have none! :-) YOUR whole purpose with those "questions" seems to be with your on-going dissatisfaction with ANYTHING I post in here. Not "anything", Len. Just some of your inaccuracies and mistakes. ANYTHING, Jimmie. You are obsessed by my posting ANYTHING. Can't you take an opposing opinion? I can, have, and dealing with it right now. :-) There is the question of "motivation" for your harrassment. Dear me, now an opposing opinion and some facts are "harrassment"? BWAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!! Why are you so OBSESSED with trying to toss me off? I'm not trying to "toss you off" anything, Len. I'm just trying to discuss the accuracy of your "scorecard". But you seem to have enormous trouble dealing with opposing opinions. BWAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!! The results of the NPRM and its final Report and Order will NOT AFFECT YOU, will it? It may. Changes in the rules of the amateur radio service may have a profound effect on me, because I'm an active licensed radio amateur. Then seek MENTAL counseling. Why? There are NO "profound" effects on your operating privileges from NPRM 05-143. NONE. The only thing left is your EMOTIONAL state. The FCC can't help you there, the ARRL can't help you there. A psychologist or psychiatrist would be of possible help for your emotional state. There is NOTHING to deny present- day privileges to ALREADY-LICENSED U.S. radio amateurs in NPRM 05-143. There are NO statements of ALREADY-LICENSED amateurs having to do a single test or examination in order to continue their existing privileges. That's true, but it's not the point. YES, it IS the point. YOUR operating privileges won't be altered by 05-143, only YOUR PERCEPTION. There is NO "profound" change going on except in your mind. YOUR only problem is MENTAL. Really? Yes. I already explained that. You should learn to accept change, not try to maintain old, trite, tired Beliefs of long ago. Why should I accept changes that are unnecessary? You've already said I must. :-) Why should I accept changes that are detrimental to the Amateur Radio Service? Prove that such changes are "detrimental." :-) Why should something be discarded just because it's old? sigh...one can only imagine the state of your clothing... :-) No wonder you aren't attached... There's very little chance that changes in the rules of the amateur radio service will have *any* effect on you, because you're not a licensed radio amateur, and it doesn't appear that you'll ever be one. The morse code test WILL AFFECT new licensees. And existing ones. What "existing ones?" Upgraders? You can't upgrade, Jimmie. But it almost certainly won't affect you, Len. How do you know that? Show your work. You're not an existing licensee nor are you likely to be a new one. I was a "licensee" in 1956. You have your "affects" totally BACKWARD. Not at all. Yes, you have. On top of that, you've tried more snide uncivil "civility" in my "motivation" towards getting any amateur radio license. How? It's quite obvious you don't want such a license and will probably never get one. Tsk, tsk, tsk. There you go again. Not nice, Jimmie. NO ONE is required to toady up to some already-licensed U.S. radio amateur and HAVE to state "motivation." NOBODY. You don't have to state your "motivation". Yes, I do. But it does seem odd that you won't state why you're so obsessed with a license test for a license you don't seem to want, and which has no effect on you at all. I'm sure it is "odd" to you, Jimmie. You are finding fault with everything I say or do, making long, long, long, long, long, long posts arguing minutae. :-) FCC can also decide to change license privileges, subbands, etc., all of which can have a profound affect on those who actually operate in the licensed service. NPRM 05-143 is solely about the MORSE CODE TEST, Jimmie. FCC isn't limited to the terms of an NPRM. Look at what happened in 1999. They proposed four license classes but the R&O reduced it to three. Jimmie, TRY to keep up with the times. "Restructuring" R&O came out in late December NINETEEN NINETY-NINE. That was THEN. This is NOW. Now is the Fall of the year 2005. The TEST. The TEST does NOT affect those ALREADY LICENSED. Yes, it does. If a change affects the amateur radio service itself, it affects those already licensed. Only those "upgrading." Gosh...imagine that, the possibility of a NO-CODE-TEST EXTRA! It would be the END OF THE CODER'S WORLD AS THEY KNOW IT! Need some help doing a "Kevorkian?" :-) The TEST affects those GETTING INTO U.S. amateur radio. But not only them. And since you're clearly not one of them, why do you care so much? Since YOU are "clearly not one of" the military, government, or the aerospace business or even "of" radio other than amateurism, why did you post so many "caring" messages on THOSE subjects? Hmmm? The ONLY "profound effect" [sic, not 'affect'] on those ALREADY IN amateur radio is MENTAL. Incorrect. VERY CORRECT! Each ALREADY LICENSED amateur will have to work that out by themselves. The FCC is NOT chartered as a mental correction aid agency. Poor baby. All confused mentally and refusing to admit it! Not me, Len. Your DENIAL, Jimmie. Plain. Out in the open. Some days back, you posted a description of your experiences with cb radio back in the late 1950s and early 1960s. You told us how you installed a manufactured cb transceiver and antenna in your car and used it. You told us the performance was *excellent* - for about four years. Then it wasn't so excellent anymore. Here's that description again: "One of the first signs of that outside amateur radio was the USA's creation of Class C and D CB in 1958. NO test of any kind, just a Restricted Radiotelephone license form needed for anyone to use the 22 channels (23rd shared with radio control). Excellent in large urban areas before the offshore products appeared about four years later and the trucking industry started buying them." Where did the excellence go, Len? It went to the Chevrolet auto dealer in Canoga Park, CA, as a trade-in. Your cb radio was traded in at a car dealership? Only the antenna and its lead-in. Went with the car. Dealer liked that. I kept the Johnson Viking Messenger. It was a 1953 Austin-Healey sports car with an all-aluminum body (excellent ground plane). Terrible for magmounts, though. I never said anything about "magmounts," Jimmie. "Magmounts" were scarce in those days. Maybe you'd like a nice image of that Austin-Healey? I have one. Clearly shows the CB "shorty" (base-loaded) antenna. That "Healey" got me an introduction to my first wife. She persuaded me to buy the replacement 1961 Impala Convertible. She was diagnosed with cancer soon after and died after a year. I am sorry for your loss. I can't believe that. YOU really know what it's like? Other than reading about it in books? After a long period of bachelorhood, I got re-acquainted with my high-school sweetheart, also unattached. We were married and are living together happily now. If you are going to ARGUE that point, I can direct you to some of our old classmates who saw and talked with us at our high school class reunion in 2001. That's from your post on the subject, a few days ago. No mention of a trade-in or your first wife. The excellence you wrote about was cb. Jimmie, go get laid or something. You are going wayyyy too far in criticsm. There are a LOT of things "I didn't mention" that happened back then. Why do you want to hear them? You argue and complain that "I tell too much [personal] information" yet now you want to argue minutae about them? And the fact remains that cb quickly went downhill in the late 1960s and early 1970s - about the same time frame as what you describe. No. You are describing LATER things than what happened here. There, aren't you HAPPY over having a newsgroup "opponent" go through difficulties? No. Not at all. NO? That's odd. To see your postings in here, I am nothing but trouble and affect you greatly. Maybe you want an ice-cold emotionless set of numbers of performance of the Viking Messenger now (I still have that old radio)? Why? Why NOT? You love to ARGUE minutae in posts. It would be a ripe area for more harrassment, "questions," et al. It still meets manufacturers' (and FCC) specifications. But I don't think you use it. Why do I have to USE it? Your '53 Healey was a classic sports car. Maybe not the fastest or most powerful thing on four wheels but definitely a classic - and classy too. Fun in the tradition of a Triumph or MG. Why do you care? You were NOT in the sports car culture of southern California in the 50s and 60s. It doesn't concern you. Your only "road race" was on foot. Probably never heard of Watkins Glen either. I am somewhat surprised that you still have the Johnson Viking Messenger, though. The thing has *vacuum tubes*, right? (At least the early Messengers did). So? I'm NOT ALLOWED to keep things? Of course the Johnson Viking Messenger is interesting from an historical POV because it was such a departure for the company. Instead of a big desk-crushing VFO transmitter, they built a compact lightweight transceiver of pretty good quality. And it still works! How do you KNOW "it still works?" Aren't you going to CHALLENGE my measurements of it? I'm "surprised" you haven't made negative of that. So I guess it's not so surprising that for more than 40 years you've held onto one of the smallest Johnsons ever produced. Davie Heil wants to talk about other "johnsons" (meaning penises). Does that turn you ON? Go talk with Davie about "small johnsons!" :-) Do you see how the same could happen to amateur radio? NOT at all. How can you can guarantee that what happened to cb cannot happen to amateur radio? I didn't "GUARANTEE" anything, Jimmie. The future happens when it happens. 1. The 11 m amateur band of 1958 was taken away from amateurs in the USA then, 47 years ago. It (and some other services) were allocated to use part of it. That's right. FCC made a big mistake doing that - one they're still trying to deal with. Why was that a "mistake?" Amateurs weren't using their former 11 meter band enough. The FCC is NOT "dealing with" CB now. Why do you care? YOU were NOT INVOLVED with radio of any kind in 1958. YOU were NOT AWARE of the FCC in 1958. YOU were NOT AWARE of much of anything in 1958. 2. NPRM 05-235 is about the MORSE CODE TEST for a United States radio amateur license examination. That has NOTHING to do with "CB." Not directly. But there is a definite connection. Merde. You are busy, busy, busy with SUPPOSITIONS and your own imagining, not to mention living in a PAST when you were NOT INVOLVED in any radio. 3. You try to connect (1) and (2) and there is NO possible connection. Of course there's a possible connection. If the loss of the Morse Code test causes amateur radio to become more like cb, it will have a profound effect on *existing* amateur radio operators. If the amateur bands become like the cb channels, existing amateurs will be affected. Waaaa...waaaa...The Sky Is Falling! YOUR "amateur world" will cease to exist then, right? The "world as you know it" will disappear! Maybe you want the amateur bands to become like the cb channels.. Maybe you want me to disappear, too, right? :-) Existing licensees can be profoundly affected by rules changes. Only MENTALLY. Nope. The effects can be much more. Do you want 40 meters to sound like the 40 cb channels? How can you ask that? Are you forgetting I'm "not involved in amateur radio," therefore I have "no business telling amateur radio what to do?" I guess you have. I'm "not allowed" to have any opinions on amateur radio, according to yours and many other's messages in here. That's right. It's very unlikely that you'll ever become a licensed radio amateur. Your behavior proves it. Waaa...waaaa..."Len opposes my godlike opinions in here so he will NEVER become a radio amateur!" BWAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!! So the only way the elimination of the Morse Code test will affect you is mentally and emotionally. Tsk, tsk, tsk. I have to be MOTIVATED for anything, right? Gosh, Jimmie, I FAILED to get a ham license BEFORE I got into professional radio-electronics! [Davie's RULE on motivation] How about that? A FAILURE from the get-go, huh? :-) Now you pretend to "know" the future as well as "motivation!" I'm saying it's very unlikely, that's all. Make up your damn mind...first you say ABSOLUTES, now you gear-switch to VAGUE CONDITIONALS. NPRM 05-235 is about MORSE CODE TESTING, Jimmie, NOT just about ME. The point about eliminating the morse code test, other than making the regulations better, Who made you the judge about what is "better", Len? Almighty God gave us humans a brain, Jimmie. WE humans don't all think alike and God for sure didn't make YOU supreme judge. is to give ALL those interested in amateur radio the OPPORTUNITY to get into it without that old, outdated, arbitrary manual test for morsemanship. All those interested have had the opportunity to "get into" amateur radio without a Morse Code test since February 14, 1991. Halloween is over, Jimmie, remove the Marie Antoinette costume. That's SUCH A TIRED CLICHE' you coders use. I was on HF first in 1953 (before you were even conceived), legally, and with more RF power output than amateurs were ever granted here. Sweetums, I'm very tired of YOUR ASSUMED "superiority" and your terribly CONDESCENDING "let them eat cake if they have no bread" to peasants. But you haven't taken advantage of that opportunity, Len. Nor of the opportunity that has existed since 1990 to get full privileges with only a 5 wpm code test. So? I had a FIRST CLASS Radiotelephone (Commercial) license. I took the OPPORTUNITY to get one in one test session at an FCC office in 1956...and then USED that in my aerospace career in California. All you got was a 2nd Class. Tsk. Not much "superiority" THERE, was it? Well, heck and darn, you will put me down as a "failure" because I had to go get the Commercial license FIRST, right? BWAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!! There will be NO effect on operating privileges of already- licensed amateurs due to elimination of the morse code test. NONE Can you guarantee that? No, I cannot "GUARANTEE" that. My Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval wore out. :-) Will existing Amateur Extras lose their license and/or privileges? I doubt it. Same with Generals. Technicians WILL have a chance to enjoy more of their hobby with increased frequency privileges. Why are you so against that? Why do you want to hold Techs in their present Ghetto? Ah, you ENJOY being "elite" and looking down on "inferiors!" :-) And it's not just operating privileges that are effects of such a change. Here's an analogy: Oh, oh, the segue into the NON-APPLICABLE Miccolis "analogies!" You've told us of your house on Lanark Street - how much you paid for it, how much it's worth now, the nearby gated community, etc. How can you BELIEVE that? You don't believe what I write! I've never been to your house but I've been in the area. You KNOW everything, why am I not surprised? :-) It's a safe bet that your area is mostly single-family houses built after WW2, with little or no commercial development. You could FIND OUT for sure by accessing the LA CITY website. You are an experienced computer user, yes? You shoud be able to instantly FIND OUT EXACTLY. World War II ended in 1945, Jimmie. "My street" was developed beginning in 1960. Also a safe bet that while there may not be many CC&Rs, the zoning probably prevents much diversity of development on your street. You COULD find out for sure instead of IMAGINING. But, what the heck, YOU never were to any zoning or developing meeting in the Van Nuys "valley government" meetings, were you? I was. Little boxes on the hillside (actually at the foot of the hill...) WRONG. "Little boxes" of 1400 to 2400 square feet on third- acre land parcels, each one worth in excess of a half million now. The difference in elevation between the "bottom" of the hill and the "top" is about 450 feet, the "top" of the local hill is 50 feet above that. If you are trying to be "accurate" you've failed miserably. I have topographic maps of my area. Do you? Now suppose someone bought some properties near you - say next door or across the street. And suppose they sought to tear down the existing houses and build new ones that would change things on Lanark Street. Suppose they wanted to put up multifamily townhomes, some as rentals and some as condos. Some retail space too. Of course that would probably take a zoning change. Sweetums, this area has ALREADY HAD A ZONING CHANGE. Worse for you, I was the speaker for our neighborhood back a decade plus ago. Good speech but it didn't matter...the issue had already been decided in favor of changing the "R" (Residential) to "R-1" (Residential with limited multi-family). One in our neighborhood affected found that out after the fact. The developer requesting the change (for "senior citizen apartments") ran out of money and couldn't start. We (us neighbors) were at the meetings with the second developer who did the walled community (single-family houses). Do NOT tell ME what the zoning changes are in MY neighborhood are, Jimmie. YOU are NOT INVOLVED here. If you need information, just ask, don't make up stories. Would you support and accept that sort of change, Len? I accepted it, as did my neighbors. We did NOT "support" it. The neighbor who found out about the under-the-table zoning change now works for our Councilwoman and has been at neighborhood meetings with the government as organizer. After all, it would give a lot more people the opportunity to get into your neighborhood without the old, outdated, arbitrary necessity of a huge down payment and massive mortgage. It would be an end to the old arbitrary requirements of single-family houses, etc. It would not directly affect *your* house - you're already there, established, etc. The new rules would not touch your house. You wouldn't give up anything except your mental image of the neighborhood. All of us at 840 feet MSL or lower (my back yard is 820 feet) lost ALL the view we had. New homes were two-story. Would you oppose or support that change? I already described what happened, dumb bass. Inject yourself with your own hypotheses and "questions." They didn't apply to me. Or suppose a licensed radio amateur moved in next door and wanted to put up a few 70 foot towers with big beams (like K8MN's). Would that be OK with you? Yes. The FAA would get on their case before me. You forget where your "analogies" are located. Look up BUR on a "sectional." There's ALREADY an amateur two blocks up, WITH beams. Just not at 70 foot height. Lower. [you WILL reply "how much lower, Len?" as if that were somehow 'important! :-) ] Your postings here exceed mine in number and length, Len. You're describing yourself, not me. Gosh, better STOP, right? Jimmie NO LIKE my postings! You're really emotionally invested in rrap.... Tsk, bad "investment." Isn't earning me any "interest." All on "account" of some dumb bass making analogues that don't apply and trying to keep amateur radio frozen in the standards and practices of the 1930s. In fact, your *only* filing on that NPRM was those reply comments, wasn't it? And despite your years of experience in computer-modem communications, you couldn't manage to submit via ECFS back then, even though thousands of us figured it out. Whoooo-eeee...you are REALLY in a snit about 1998 issues! That was over six years ago. So what? You repeatedly bring up stuff that's much older and even less relevant. Sweetums, it wasn't ME who brought up (or brings up) those old, old WT Docket 98-143 comments. Tsk, tsk, my Scorecard is on Docket 05-235. 2005, not 1998. I have NOT pursued that since except for the accusations leveled at me in here. What "accusations", Len? The facts were presented and you confirmed them. You even accused ARRL and some VEs of fraud and dishonest over the licensing of some young amateurs. My "score card" postings don't mention that, Jimmie. If you can't get your analogies in order, PLEASE try to refrain from dredging up the PAST. It won't help whatever you think your case IS. You weren't at the VE session, don't know any of the people involved, and yet you accused others of fraud. Tsk, tsk. My OPINIONS about those six-year-old licensees remain the SAME, sweetums. DEAL WITH IT. :-) And you claimed that because, in *your* opinion, 6-year-olds could not understand the material on the test, no one under the age of 14 should be allowed to hold an amateur radio license. Who is doing the "dredging up," Jimmie? :-) Truth is, you've repeatedly defended your position on the issue. You didn't "drop it". Wow...poor baby, STILL arguing and re-arguing the PAST! Now you *could* come out and say it was a bad idea and that there should be no age requirements for an amateur radio license. Awwww....you want me to say "sowwy?" :-) Jimmie, DROP this old argument. It has NO BEARING on NPRM 05-143. You DO? Okay, I'll try to hound you about NEVER serving your country in the military You do that already. I've never claimed any military service. Then why did you claim all that "knowledge" about being IN the military, Jimmie? every time you make some pontifical remark showing your "military expertise." That would be never, Len. Because I don't claim "expertise" at anything. Ho. Ho. Ho. YES, you do! :-) I do know a few things, though, and it really seems to tick you off when one of your mistakes is pointed out. Like the in-service dates of Soviet Bear bombers.... Jimmie, Jimmie, Jimmie, I acknowledged that I DID confuse the existance of that type of Soviet aircraft at the time involved. EXACT AIRCRAFT DETAILS of the entire Cold War wasn't a career specialty of mine in aerospace. You want to microscope-focus on minutae in order to show a poster is "mistaken" and therefore of no value whatsoever in these non-discussions. :-) DID the USSR have bombers capable of reaching from Kamchatka to the Kanto Plain on Honshu in Japan in the mid-1950s? Yes, they DID. Both the USA and USAF had anti-aircraft measures for such events. Did the USSR have an air-deployable nuclear weapon in that same time? Yes, it did. Was I stationed in Tokyo in that time? Yes, I was. Was I involved in contingency plans and drilling for same at that time? Yes, I was. I'll not argue the TYPE of Soviet aircraft the USSR MIGHT have used in the mid-1950s to deliver any nukes. None were dropped. But, WHAT DOES IT MATTER on the type of Soviet aircraft involved then? YOU were NOT INVOLVED. YOU were NEVER IN THE MILITARY! But you have "a problem" with 13 year olds getting amateur radio licenses. No. Then you're saying there should not be any age requirement for an amateur radio license. Tsk, tsk. I'm NOT dragging up 6 1/2 year old arguements in here. :-) I have a "problem" with mental 13-year-olds in here posing as adults It's not all about you, Len. Ha. Ha. Ha. More "civil discourse" there, Jimmie? :-) and who ask all sorts of inane "questions" (that were already answered a priori) and make all kinds of accusations...all of which may be summed up as HECKLING. Not by any reasonable definition of heckling. Jimmie never do wrong! No sir, NOT Jimmie. Jimmie dredge up old stuff to re-argue, re-hash, try to vainly win. I'm not the one recommending an age requirement for a US amateur radio license. You are. I DID. I dropped it after 13 January 1999. Yet you kept on defending it. That was OVER SIX YEARS ago. Your defense of it is a lot more recent. You are STILL OFFENDED over that! Not me. I just think it's a really bad idea. Waaa...waaaa...Jimmie keeps on. Must have fresh Energizers... So...maybe you LIKE talking to 13-year-olds on the radio using radiotelegraphy that makes all age clues meaningless? Why, yes! I enjoy using Morse Code to communicate with hams of all ages. I've worked 10 year olds on Morse Code and 90+ year olds too. I've Elmered hams of all ages, too. Is THAT what it's called now?!? What matters to me is the person on the other end of the QSO, what they have to say, and how much fun the whole process is. The other ham's age is of vanishing importance to me. Tsk, tsk...you sound like Captain Code. You like talking to little boys, Jimmie? Does that satisfy some internal desires of yours? Working other hams is a lot of fun for me. This weekend is the CW SS. I intend to work a lot of other hams using Morse Code. For fun. Enjoy. Keep advancing the state of the amateur art. Keep the electronics trades knowledgeable about your progress. "I'm just asking some questions." Yep. Is that wrong? I'm just giving you answers. Is that wrong? :-) That's right. Your postings are fair game for comment and question by others. They are not somehow sacred and unimpeachable. They are not immune to question and/or debate. Wow! You've FINALLY gotten the picture, Judge! :-) Tsk, tsk. You forgot to add in the part where, if YOU ask someone something they MUST answer or you will make tens of thousands of words in messaging if you don't get the answers you WANT! :-) That's what *you* do, Len. In this thread I was just posting a near-daily tally of the filings and their content on WT Docket 05-235. YOU turned it into minor-league Spanish Inquisition stuff with your "questions" and old, old arguments from the past on very different subjects. Poor Jimmie? Double-degreed "engineer" and you can't MAKE ENOUGH to spend over $100 on a rig? :-) It really *is* all about money to you, Len. Oh, oh, the commie sympathizer comes out of his closet in PA? "Commie sympathizer"? That's almost funny! You really are clueless if you'd call me that. I was just asking a question... :-) See that funny hook-like punctuation mark? That's called a "question mark." That denotes a Question. Well, that's a sure indication YOU don't have as much money as YOU want. :-) Who does? Do you? Yes. :-) I have enough. How much is "enough?" Your answers aren't clear. That's what's important. I'm also very wealthy in things that cannot be bought. Tsk. Better get to the market. Your "milk of human kindness" turned sour some time ago... Yup...and it shows you HATE professionals for some reason. Not me. I am one! Prove it. Odd, because you claim to BE a professional in electronics. Where? That's what *I* was asking, dumb bass. :-) I am a professional in electrical engineering. There's a lot more to EE than "electronics". Where do you DO this "professional" stuff, Jimmie? Us readers don't know WHERE since you won't mention your employer...not here, not to the FCC. Why should I? Would it make any difference? Or would it simply be something else for you to insult and denigrate? Now, now, you should be PROUD of what you do. If you were really PROUD, then you wouldn't mind revealing your employer. Now if you had something to HIDE from your employer, that would be different. Also be hypocritical. Perhaps it's time to repost your classic "sphincters post", where you denigrated and insulted the military service experiences of a US Coast Guard radio operator. Perhaps you need a tranquilizer instead? You are getting all wrought up about subjects that don't have anything to do with Docket 05-235. Jeffie-poo is probably too busy "lecturing" at the "university" to come in here and grapple with the no-code bottom feeders... :-) USCG has STOPPED monitoring the 500 KHz frequency, Jimmie. Really. I'm "all about money?" I didn't say that. I wrote: "It really *is* all about money to you, Len." Why do you say that? And apparently, it is. Your behavior confirms it. Tsk, tsk, tsk, you argue minutae over sentence structure? Would it be better if I wrote it in morse code? Tsk, tsk. I'm not getting paid to write all this stuff, Jimmie. :-) Not really. Got some. Spent some. Dropped $1100 last week at CompUSA-GoodGuys for a 27" HD LCD flat panel TV this week and it works just dandy. See? There you go. Gotta mention what you bought and how much it cost. No, I don't "gotta." My wife and I have been enjoying the pictures and programs on that TV. We have digital cable service, Jimmie, over 150 channels of a great variety of programs. Tsk, tsk, I guess if one is "anti-code" then one can't mention (evil?) money? :-) LCD and plasma panel HD-ready TVs might be starting to come down in price. DTV is the FUTURE, Jimmie. FCC said so. Telegraphy is the PAST. ARRL don't want to admit that, but it IS. You sure seem to be one of those people who consider "net worth" and "personal worth" to be synonymous.... Nothing "synonymous" there, Jimmie. We planned for it, got it. It ain't braggin'. Remember "It ain't braggin' if ya done it"? :-) [it doesn't do morse code so I guess you wouldn't be interested in it] Doesn't make the programs any better, though. Mostly JUNK on TV... Ooooooo! A glimpse into the Dark Side of the netherworld's TV critics! Are you a counterpart of Ebert or Roeper? :-) Wow! Remember who once said "I've just GOT to get cable!" :-) I want the FCC to make NPRM 05-143 into a Report and Order...without changes to the basic precepts in the NPRM. Why? Those changes won't affect you. They MAY. Very unlikely. Tsk, tsk, tsk...can you "GUARANTEE" that? :-) They WILL affect all those who desire to enter HF amateur radio without taking a code test. So? You're not one of them. Neither are most of the staff and all of the Commissioners at the FCC! They MAKE the U.S. amateur radio regulations, Jimmie. Other than mentally, emotionally, how will the removal of the morse code test affect YOU? If it damages the amateur radio service, it affects me. "Damages?" Tsk, tsk. Who made YOU "judge" of what is "damaged?" Don't you have any other hobby besides radiotelegraphy? And making some of the longest "I'm only asking 'question'" posts in the history of newsgrouping... :-) It won't remove any of your operating privileges, won't make you re-test. I'm not afraid of any retest, Len. Big, brave mighty macho morsemen are NEVER "afraid," Jimmie. Was your "courage" challenged? I don't think so. Of course, you NEVER served in the military of your country, took NO risks that might possibly hurt you. We should "respect" you more for that, right? Took LOTS of "courage" to stay OUT. You seem to be afraid of any test, though. Or any question. Taken - and passed all - REAL Tests, Jimmie. No fear. Even this long one. I've ANSWERED all your questions, haven't I? "All you were doing was asking questions!" All I did was answer those "questions," and simply ask a few of my own. You haven't answered all of my previous questions and I doubt you will answer any from this reply. Tsk, tsk. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:06 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com