|
Scorecard on WT Docket 05-235
Alun L. Palmer wrote:
At least Len finally answered the citizenship question, although I'm not convinced by his answer. Nor am I. As it happens (and many of you already know this) I'm not a US citizen myself. This means that I can't vote in federal elections, although beleive it or not, voting in local elections is upto local government to decide. In fact, I think that the states have the power to let aliens vote in federal, but not presidential elections, but none of them do any longer, although I understand it was common in pioneering times when few people were citizens. One city in this state does allow non-citizens to vote, but it's not the city I live in. Point is, commenting isn't voting. It would be nice to vote, but I am eligible to apply for citizenship at any time, so this is not a big issue for me. I prefer not to renounce my native citizenship, even though it would have no legal effect in itself, i.e. the UK doesn't recognise renunciation. I don't think FCC cares one way or the other. When it comes to FCC comment procedures, there is no system in place for checking the citizenship of anyone who posts a comment, and no longer any restriction on aliens holding a licence, although there once was, but that was before my time. Not only that, but there's probably no real system of checking that commenters are who they way they are. Of course there are probably laws on the books for deliberate false statements but I don't think FCC has gone after any amateur radio commenters with them... Hence, if I post a comment it will be counted by the FCC, if not by Len. OTOH, if people don't post their citizenship (I don't when commenting to the FCC) Len won't know whether to include them or not (even though the FCC will). I think the *content* of the comments is more important than whether the commenter is a citizen. I think this is Jim's point, as it does reflect on the accuracy of the scorecard, albeit not enough to keep Element 1 from going West! It's one point of many I'm making about the (in)accuracy of Len's 'scorecard'. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Scorecard on WT Docket 05-235
|
Scorecard on WT Docket 05-235
|
Scorecard on WT Docket 05-235
wrote in message oups.com... Bill Sohl wrote: wrote in message ups.com... The trend is and has been towards ending code testing. Nothing has changed to alter that general opinion. Doesn't mean it's a good thing. IYHO Of course. Inactivity in response to the treaty change by the FCC can certainly be chalked up to digestion of the host of petitions filed after WRC and the ultimate issuance of NPRM 98-235 which is now pending. Maybe - but if there really was a precedent, FCC could cite it, but they haven't. IF (let's be hypothetical) Sure! the FCC did retain code for Extra, then the American Disabilities Act (ADA) will surely be raised by someone who need only point to the use of waivers previously and no court in this country would rule against such a clain. IANAL, but was ADA ever successfully cited before against an FCC decision? An amateur license isn't a right - only access to the tests for one is. ADA wasn't needed because the FCC had already provided a waiver process. Did code waivers come first, or ADA? I I think the ADA may predate waivers... but that isn't of any importance anyway. The ADA didn't force anyone to immediately do anything. Most or much of the ADA impact has been with new accomodations. Application of ADA in existing situations has usually been the reult of a complaint by an individual or a group of individuals. Waivers of any kind are a real quagmire because they say the waivered test isn't really necessary for the license. What's to prevent someone for demanding a waiver of the Extra *written* test? Anyone can demand anything. Of course. But there's as much reason to use ADA against the Extra written as their is to use it against an "Extras only" code test. Perhaps, perhaps not. On your first statement regarding waivers being a quagmire...I agree and that's exactly why the FCC isn't going to retain any code testing. Probably right! Which is why further discussion on this is a waste of my time. I'll wait to see what the FCC does before continuing this hypothetical. That's a path that FCC just won't go down. Probably not. PLEASE explain on what legal or rational basis the FCC could argue to avoid a waiver policy if code was only retained for Extra. Several: First off, I don't think ADA has ever been successfully cited against FCC regulations So? It hasn't been needed on any FCC basis yet. Or maybe it doesn't apply. Ditto my last comment. Second, an amateur radio license isn't a commercial thing, so it's not like someone is denied a job or similar. ADA is not simply about jobs...it is about "access" on a broad basis. Which is up to interpretation. "Access" can be interpreted to mean being allowed to take the test, not being guaranteed a license. Ditto my last again. Third, Extra does not give any more power, modes, bands or other operating privileges *except* a little more frequency spectrum. That's a contradictory statement. You say there's no additional privileges and then you note that there is. Read it again! I wrote there are no additional operating (meaning on-the-air) privs *except* a bit more spectrum. I know what you said, but in reality your except does contradict your lead statement. There's also the vanity call selection and the ability to VE other Extras, but that's about it. Ditto my last. Let me try another way... What does upgrading to Extra get for a General class licensee? There's the ability to VE all exams including Extra. There's the really spiffy callsigns. But Generals have access to all the same bands as Extras. All the same modes, too, and the same power level. On 4 of the HF bands, there are parts of the band that are for Extras only. Which clearly is additional operating privileges. The ADA argument could be brought that all that additional theory in the Extra written isn't an absolute requirement because it's not directly related to the privileges gained. I doubt it, but for now see no need to discuss or debate the point UNLESS someone actually goes there. Fourth and most important, there's no absolute right to an amateur radio license. It's a privilege - only access to the tests is a right. I think any good ADA attorney would argue otherwise. But would they win? I believe so, but for now see no need to discuss or debate the point UNLESS someone actually goes there. As an analogy, consider the national parks. There are places where access to the park by motor vehicle is not allowed. Does ADA require that all parts of all parks be accessible by motor vehicle because some people can't walk to them? ADA calls for reasonable accomodation where it can be done. Your national park analogy doesn't apply. I think it does. Paved paths could be provided, and small motor vehicles. The ADA calls for "reasonable" accomodations. That is the defining point. But again, for now I see no need to discuss or debate the point. Point is, that's not done because, in those parts of the national parks, access by everyone is deemed secondary to preserving the wild state of the park. Which is why the legislation isn't absolute as to access. Ditto again...end of discussion for now. One simple solution is the "Canadian compromise": Keep code testing but change how it is scored. One method is to change the requirement for Element 3 (General written) to the following: Element 3 can be passed by getting an ~85% grade on the 35 written questions *or* a ~75% grade and a passing mark on the code test. That way there's no "lowering of standards" yet the Morse Code test is not a mandatory pass-fail standalone test any more. I personally don't believe the Canadian compromise would pass ADA requirements. I do. In fact I think it would solve a lot of problems. We clearly differ in opinion then. I'm wondering how the options given above would not meet ADA. The two grading methods would be open to everyone. What would be the problem? Cross that bridge if and when it happens. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
Scorecard on WT Docket 05-235
wrote: wrote: From: on Tues 1 Nov 2005 16:35 cut I guess so...anything to try your damndest to fudge, alter the percentages in favor of pro-code. Tsk. You're the one "fudging", Len. now you are making accusation of fraud cut 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. But not all of it. I saw your anti-Extra diatribe. Some would say it was "petulant" and "whiny"..... more name calling Jim The code test is essentially about GETTING INTO amateur radio HF privileges. So are the written tests. If FCC enacts the NPRM, it will take at least a General license for new hams to get *any* HF privileges. now you claim to know what the FCC will enact? personaly I hope that they will heed my word and Jim Haneys ( sp?an ARRL officer) and enact a R&O that gives the intail class currently called Tech the prevelegdes of the class once known as Tech plus cut Amateur radio is a completely different thing. FCC recognizes that, even if you don't. You've never fully explained why the artificiality of testing for morsemanship is so damn necessary for amateur operations Because hams use Morse Code, for one. some hams do not all some hams NEVER use manual morse and never will cut 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. No, you didn't write that. Read what you actually wrote, Len. why? cut 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. That leaves you out... and you jim You seem to be of a CLOSED mind when it comes to code testing. Not as closed as yours, Len. as you confess here 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"! :-) Your methods are inaccurate. That's a fact. BUUUZZ a lie Jim your statement is an opinion 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. :-) What have I "done wrong", Len? lied about Len amoug other things cut |
Scorecard on WT Docket 05-235
wrote:
From: on Tues 1 Nov 2005 16:35 wrote: From: on Oct 29, 4:44 am wrote: From: on Thurs, Oct 27 2005 3:41 pm wrote: From: on Tues, Oct 25 2005 2:30 am wrote: From: on Oct 24, 3:39 am Alun L. Palmer wrote: Why should I accept changes that are detrimental to the Amateur Radio Service? Prove that such changes are "detrimental." :-) I've already shown that they could be. Why should something be discarded just because it's old? sigh...one can only imagine the state of your clothing... :-) Considering how long you've held onto your Johnson, I'd try not to imagine the state of yours... No wonder you aren't attached... "Attached"? In what way? I don't have a conjoined twin, if that's what you mean. 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. All existing amateurs could be affected. But it almost certainly won't affect you, Len. How do you know that? Show your work. As I have explained befo It has been possible to get an amateur radio license in the USA without any code test since 1991. It's been possible to get any available class of amateur radio license in the USA with only a 5 wpm code test since 1990. But you haven't gotten one. And except for you "Extra out of the box" claim back in 2000, you haven't said you intended to. You're not an existing licensee nor are you likely to be a new one. I was a "licensee" in 1956. Not in the amateur radio service, you weren't.. 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. What's "not nice" about stating the facts, Len? Your disdain of the ARS is not a secret. 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. Then state it, Len. 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. Actually not. It's also an R&O, and has lots of policy statements from FCC. For example, it specifically denies all requests for a new entry-class license. It also repeats FCC's support for a three-tier system of license classes. Plus much more. 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." Not just them. 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?" :-) Gee, Len, that's not funny. 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? "You can not answer a question with another question" - Len Anderson 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." Let's look at that last sentence again: "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. That's not what was meant by "before the offshore products appeared about four years later and the trucking industry started buying them." That refers to cb radios, and how the cb radio service wasn't so excellent anymore. You know that the cb service went downhill. The same thing could happen to the amateur radio service. You're avoiding the issue because you know I'm right - or maybe because that sort of slide is exactly what you want. 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. Your sense of technical humor has gone missing, Len - if it ever existed. Maybe you'd like a nice image of that Austin-Healey? I have one. The last time you sent me an "image", (unrequested and unwanted spam) it contained male nudity. No thanks. Clearly shows the CB "shorty" (base-loaded) antenna. So you had a shorty connected to your compact Johnson. Quite appropriate.... 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. It's true, nevertheless. You don't believe in a lot of things, but that doesn't change their truth. YOU really know what it's like? Other than reading about it in books? I know what it's like to lose someone to cancer, yes. And to see someone die before their time. I am sorry for your loss. 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. That's nice. But what does it have to do with amateur radio policy? 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. What *is* your problem, Len? You can't take opposition to your cherished views, eh? You can't take strong debate. You are going wayyyy too far in criticsm. You're misdirecting away from the point about 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. No. Yes. Although I was never on cb, I did listen to it from time to time, and knew several active cbers back then. By the mid1960s the cb service was already a problem. You are describing LATER things than what happened here. "Excellent in large urban areas before the offshore products appeared about four years later and the trucking industry started buying them." Your words. Documenting the loss of excellence in the cb service. You know it happened, but to admit it here would prove me right, and you can't tolerate that. There, aren't you HAPPY over having a newsgroup "opponent" go through difficulties? No. Not at all. NO? No. I am sorry for your loss. That's odd. To see your postings in here, I am nothing but trouble and affect you greatly. You don't affect me much at all, Len. 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? You don't have to use it. Point is, the cb service is such a mess that even you don't participate in 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? I appreciate all sorts of classics. You were NOT in the sports car culture of southern California in the 50s and 60s. So? You're not in the amateur radio of any decade, but you comment on it at extreme length. It doesn't concern you. Amateur radio doesn't concern you either, but that doesn't stop you. Your only "road race" was on foot. So? I've run many road races. Have you? Probably never heard of Watkins Glen either. Not only heard of it but been there several times. Have you? 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? You can keep whatever you want, Len. But I find it odd that you would hold onto your tube-filled Johnson for so long. After all, you're always lecturing us about "change" and "new technology" and all that sort of rot. 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?" You said so. Aren't you going to CHALLENGE my measurements of it? No. I'm "surprised" you haven't made negative of that. Surprise, surprise! 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). Where do you get that, Len? K8MN did not write of "johnsons" at all. He wrote about "Johnsons". (See the capital J?) Many items are routinely referred to by the manufacturer's name. Hams do it all the time when describing their rigs. For example, just considering radio sets, I've owned seven Heathkits, two RMEs, three Nationals, two Hallicrafters, one Gonset, seven Southgates and yes, at least four different Johnsons. Does that turn you ON? Go talk with Davie about "small johnsons!" :-) Why? You've obviously got the most experience dealing with one of the smallest Johnsons ever produced. Dave and I are more interested in the bigger Johnsons, such as the Valiant (I had one) and the Viking 2 (I had two of those, plus the 122 VFO). Do you see how the same could happen to amateur radio? NOT at all. Denial. 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. So what I'm concerned with could happen. You won't admit that, of course. |
Scorecard on WT Docket 05-235
wrote: wrote: From: on Tues 1 Nov 2005 16:35 wrote: From: on Oct 29, 4:44 am wrote: From: on Thurs, Oct 27 2005 3:41 pm wrote: From: on Tues, Oct 25 2005 2:30 am wrote: From: on Oct 24, 3:39 am Alun L. Palmer wrote: Why should I accept changes that are detrimental to the Amateur Radio Service? Prove that such changes are "detrimental." :-) I've already shown that they could be. Why should something be discarded just because it's old? sigh...one can only imagine the state of your clothing... :-) Considering how long you've held onto your Johnson, I'd try not to imagine the state of yours... more name calling cut |
Scorecard on WT Docket 05-235
Bill Sohl wrote:
wrote in message oups.com... Bill Sohl wrote: wrote in message ups.com... the FCC did retain code for Extra, then the American Disabilities Act (ADA) will surely be raised by someone who need only point to the use of waivers previously and no court in this country would rule against such a clain. IANAL, but was ADA ever successfully cited before against an FCC decision? An amateur license isn't a right - only access to the tests for one is. ADA wasn't needed because the FCC had already provided a waiver process. Did code waivers come first, or ADA? I I think the ADA may predate waivers... but that isn't of any importance anyway. I think it is. IMHO anyway. The ADA didn't force anyone to immediately do anything. Most or much of the ADA impact has been with new accomodations. Application of ADA in existing situations has usually been the reult of a complaint by an individual or a group of individuals. Exactly - and *nobody complained*. It took backdoor diplomacy by a foreign King to get waivers, not advocacy by any US group. But there's as much reason to use ADA against the Extra written as their is to use it against an "Extras only" code test. Perhaps, perhaps not. On your first statement regarding waivers being a quagmire...I agree and that's exactly why the FCC isn't going to retain any code testing. Probably right! Which is why further discussion on this is a waste of my time. I'll wait to see what the FCC does before continuing this hypothetical. I think it's worthwhile to consider where a path may lead before going that way. Second, an amateur radio license isn't a commercial thing, so it's not like someone is denied a job or similar. ADA is not simply about jobs...it is about "access" on a broad basis. Which is up to interpretation. "Access" can be interpreted to mean being allowed to take the test, not being guaranteed a license. Ditto my last again. Third, Extra does not give any more power, modes, bands or other operating privileges *except* a little more frequency spectrum. That's a contradictory statement. You say there's no additional privileges and then you note that there is. Read it again! I wrote there are no additional operating (meaning on-the-air) privs *except* a bit more spectrum. I know what you said, but in reality your except does contradict your lead statement. Not at all. See below. There's also the vanity call selection and the ability to VE other Extras, but that's about it. Ditto my last. Let me try another way... What does upgrading to Extra get for a General class licensee? There's the ability to VE all exams including Extra. There's the really spiffy callsigns. But Generals have access to all the same bands as Extras. All the same modes, too, and the same power level. On 4 of the HF bands, there are parts of the band that are for Extras only. Which clearly is additional operating privileges. But not *different* operating privileges! (I should have said it that way from the beginning!) IOW, what's the difference between operating on, say, 14,030 kHz vs. 14,020 kHz using the same mode and power level? What additional knowledge or skills are needed for the lower frequency that aren't needed for the higher one? It could be claimed that since the Extra written isn't required to use 14,030, why is it an absolute requirement to use 14,020? Particularly for folks who have a really tough time memorizing/understanding all the stuff in the written tests? By allowing waivers *in principle*, the whole quagmire opens up to question all test requirements. The ADA argument could be brought that all that additional theory in the Extra written isn't an absolute requirement because it's not directly related to the privileges gained. I doubt it, but for now see no need to discuss or debate the point UNLESS someone actually goes there. Just the opposite - because if they go there, and cite the precedent, what possible argument could be used against them? This is actually backing up your assertion that FCC won't go for waivers under any circumstances, because they set the precedent for more waivers in cases like the above. Fourth and most important, there's no absolute right to an amateur radio license. It's a privilege - only access to the tests is a right. I think any good ADA attorney would argue otherwise. But would they win? I believe so, but for now see no need to discuss or debate the point UNLESS someone actually goes there. And so far, nobody has. As an analogy, consider the national parks. There are places where access to the park by motor vehicle is not allowed. Does ADA require that all parts of all parks be accessible by motor vehicle because some people can't walk to them? ADA calls for reasonable accomodation where it can be done. Your national park analogy doesn't apply. I think it does. Paved paths could be provided, and small motor vehicles. The ADA calls for "reasonable" accomodations. That is the defining point. But again, for now I see no need to discuss or debate the point. "Reasonable" means there's a very wide latitude for interpretation and argument. Point is, that's not done because, in those parts of the national parks, access by everyone is deemed secondary to preserving the wild state of the park. Which is why the legislation isn't absolute as to access. Ditto again...end of discussion for now. One simple solution is the "Canadian compromise": Keep code testing but change how it is scored. One method is to change the requirement for Element 3 (General written) to the following: Element 3 can be passed by getting an ~85% grade on the 35 written questions *or* a ~75% grade and a passing mark on the code test. That way there's no "lowering of standards" yet the Morse Code test is not a mandatory pass-fail standalone test any more. I personally don't believe the Canadian compromise would pass ADA requirements. I do. In fact I think it would solve a lot of problems. We clearly differ in opinion then. I'm wondering how the options given above would not meet ADA. The two grading methods would be open to everyone. What would be the problem? Cross that bridge if and when it happens. "Failing to plan is planning to fail" 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Quote:
The Man in the Maze QRV from Baboquivari Peak, AZ |
Scorecard on WT Docket 05-235
From: on Tues 8 Nov 2005 03:43
Bill Sohl wrote: wrote in message Bill Sohl wrote: wrote in message ADA wasn't needed because the FCC had already provided a waiver process. Did code waivers come first, or ADA? I I think the ADA may predate waivers... but that isn't of any importance anyway. I think it is. IMHO anyway. ADA didn't use any morse code after 1948. The ADA didn't force anyone to immediately do anything. Most or much of the ADA impact has been with new accomodations. Application of ADA in existing situations has usually been the reult of a complaint by an individual or a group of individuals. Exactly - and *nobody complained*. It took backdoor diplomacy by a foreign King to get waivers, not advocacy by any US group. ADA still doesn't use any morse code. ADA isn't subject to any "diplomacy" and is responsible only to the United States Army as Headquarters, U. S. Army Pacific. Reference on ADA: http://sujan.hallikainen.org/Broadca...s/My3Years.pdf "Failing to plan is planning to fail" Jimmie, you should be in our State Department! :-) |
Scorecard on WT Docket 05-235
From: on Mon 7 Nov 2005 09:35
wrote: From: on Tues 1 Nov 2005 16:35 wrote: From: on Oct 29, 4:44 am wrote: From: on Thurs, Oct 27 2005 3:41 pm wrote: From: on Tues, Oct 25 2005 2:30 am wrote: From: on Oct 24, 3:39 am Alun L. Palmer wrote: Your methods are faulty. All anti-morse are "faulty." By morseman definition! :-) You're the one "fudging", Len. By counting multiple comments and reply comments from the same person as separate opinions rather than duplicates, you're saying that some people's opinions are worth more than others simply because they wrote more. Morsemen think they know all about radio... :-) What's worse is that you tried to hide that fact, and the effect it has on the 'scorecard'. Tsk, nothing was "hidden" in all those "score card." They are what they are. Joe Speroni hides the fact that the official comment period didn't begin until 31 August. You muddied that clarity by counting some people's opinions multiple times. Tsk, your opinion is faulty. :-) You dislike that. Not at all. Yes, you do. :-) And then the trend went the other way. Like it or not. I kept on reporting the tally, like it or not. You don't have website, though, even though AOL has a homepage for every screen name. Reporting a tally requires a website? Oh, my...! :-) How does your posting it *here* tell the FCC anything, Len? Doesn't matter, Jimmie. I never said it did. The direct communication by citizens with the Commission "tells" them. But not all of it. I saw your anti-Extra diatribe. Some would say it was "petulant" and "whiny"..... Poor baby. Feeling petulant and whiny are you? :-) So are the written tests. If FCC enacts the NPRM, it will take at least a General license for new hams to get *any* HF privileges. Tsk, tsk, Jimmie. WRONG. The FCC doesn't "enact NPRMs." Those are just NOTICES of PROPOSED Rulemaking. That's why they are called what they are. :-) "Enacts" come from Reports and Orders. Long ago I started communications on HF without a single requirement to know or test for morse code and did it LEGALLY. Sure - as part of a *battalion* of military servicepeople caring for a bunch of transmitters. You were trained to do the job, tested along the way, and supervised at every opportunity. You were there? You were in the military? I didn't know that. Transmitters (a "bunch" of THREE DOZEN) was "run" by a COMPANY, Jimmie. [C Company in this case] Better read your books a little closer... :-) The transmitter operation was completely governed by set procedures and by experienced personnel. "Peak the grid and dip the plate." :-) "Set procedure" for tube finals. Same "set procedure" for tube finals today, a half century later... :-) After a (short) while *I* became one of the "experienced personnel," Jimmie. "Three up and one down" on the sleeve. Operating Team Supervisor. E-5. NCO. Oh, and I was NEVER trained to operate high-power transmitters in the Army, Jimmie. My Signal schooling was on microwave radio relay. A Field Radio MOS got trained on high-power transmitters on HF. [you need to read your books carefully] Amateur radio is a completely different thing. FCC recognizes that, even if you don't. Electrons, fields and waves don't differentiate between human discriminations in human ideas of things like human laws. Really. Didn't you learn that at "Dexter?" :-) FCC "recognizes" that they ONLY regulate United States CIVIL radio, Jimmie. They are limited to CIVIL radio by two Acts of Congress of the United States. FCC can recognize other kinds of "civility" too! :-) Tsk, you aren't being civil in here... Nope. I think for myself. I've given my reasons for my support of Morse Code testing in my comments to FCC, and here. "Conditioned thinking" is known by its colloquial name of "brain washing." If your mind wasn't "washed," then it must be dirty. You don't like them, so you attack me and claim nonsense like "conditioned thinking" rather than a simple difference of opinion. Tsk, you aren't being "civil"! :-) You haven't "dropped it", Len. True! Don't plan to, either! :-) You go into detail explaining other people's motivations, so yours are fair game even if you won't discuss them or admit to them. You telling me what to do! Tsk. :-) No, you didn't write that. Read what you actually wrote, Len. I do. Haven't detected any "hacker" trying to post their words under my screen name. :-) I'm not calling people names, Len. You are. How AWFUL! I'm the only one, right? :-) Nobody made ME any "judge," Jimmie. But you act like one here. Fear being laid off? :-) I OBSERVE it. It's apparant to anyone with an open mind. That leaves you out... Tsk, tsk, incivility! You seem to be of a CLOSED mind when it comes to code testing. Not as closed as yours, Len. MORE incivility! :-) Your methods are inaccurate. That's a fact. Tsk, MY tally doesn't go by YOUR "standards." MY tally doesn't go by Joe Speroni's "standards." Sunnuvagun! What have I "done wrong", Len? BWAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. It's clear you tried to skew them the way *you* want them, Len. But the majority still opposed it. You oppose my posting in here. Ergo, you are the majority. A majority of one. Your skewing has been revealed It is a HEINOUS and IMMORAL to act against a morseman! You avoid the question because you know I'm right. You are? I didn't know that... Because one person's opinion should not be counted multiple times. Hey, let's count ALL 20 of those LAW STUDENTS (who don't have any professed desire to get ham licenses and doing some kind of class exercise at University of Tennessee) who got into the official time period of comments on 05-235! Some were FOR, some were AGAINST the NPRM. Do you know which ones, Jimmie? Let's count an instructor at an English Departement of a west coast university who also stated outright she wasn't interested in any amateur radio license yet was against the NPRM! Joe Speroni counts her Comment as "pro-CW!" How about Dwayne Sparks, Jimmie? He Commented (not one of his were Replies to Comments) 13 times "pro-CW." He is an Extra. Jimmie, Joe Speroni's "analysis" does NOT consider what the federal government says is an official comment period and merely counts ALL. HIS "standards" set out to make it absolutely favorable towards radiotelegraphy testing...but he is "okay." He is "okay" because He is a morseman and that's "okay." [cue an old tired Monty Python sketch here...] I'll let Bill the Cat comment: "Pbthbththththth..." :-) [from "Opus" 2] |
Scorecard on WT Docket 05-235
From: on Mon, Nov 7 2005 5:59 pm
wrote: Considering how long you've held onto your Johnson, I'd try not to imagine the state of yours... My E. F. Johnson Viking Messenger still meets manufacturer's specifications. My johnson still works fine. Next question... No wonder you aren't attached... "Attached"? In what way? I don't have a conjoined twin, if that's what you mean. You are NOT married? Are NOT a parent? Considering all the talk about your "classic johnson" that's surprising! All existing amateurs could be affected. By your "classic johnson?" Tsk, tsk! What's "not nice" about stating the facts, Len? Your disdain of the ARS is not a secret. I'm not in favor of the Amateur Radiotelegraphy Society. I'm not in favor of CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS in the amateur radio service. To NOT love an amateur morseman is to "hate ALL amateur radio licensees?" I think not. NPRM 05-143 is solely about the MORSE CODE TEST, Jimmie. Actually not. It's also an R&O, and has lots of policy statements from FCC. BAD MISTAKE, Jimmie. Go stand in the corner. "NPRM" is an acronym for Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. It is just a notice. "R&O" is a familiar term for Report and Order. A Report and Order MAKES a regulation. An NPRM and R&O are NOT the "same." So you had a shorty connected to your compact Johnson. Quite appropriate.... Tsk. You are overly concerned with "johnsons," Jimmie. Is your middle name in "James P. Miccolis" standing for PETER? What *is* your problem, Len? Maybe because I don't have a "classic johnson?" You're misdirecting away from the point about cb. This thread was originally about WT Docket 05-235. That Docket has NO relation to Citizens Band Radio Service. You don't affect me much at all, Len. ...and you don't post a lot in this newsgroup... I appreciate all sorts of classics. Tsk, you and Davie "appreciate" those "classic johnsons" too much... You can keep whatever you want, Len. But I find it odd that you would hold onto your tube-filled Johnson for so long. After all, you're always lecturing us about "change" and "new technology" and all that sort of rot. "Rot?" How is your 1990s "original design" "tube-filled" "state of the art" ham rig doing? Any more "neighbors" come over to gush over your expertise in making it? Did they ever gush over your classic johnson? Many items are routinely referred to by the manufacturer's name. Hams do it all the time when describing their rigs. For example, just considering radio sets, I've owned seven Heathkits, two RMEs, three Nationals, two Hallicrafters, one Gonset, seven Southgates and yes, at least four different Johnsons. Could you ever get any of them to work? Why? You've obviously got the most experience dealing with one of the smallest Johnsons ever produced. Dave and I are more interested in the bigger Johnsons, such as the Valiant (I had one) and the Viking 2 (I had two of those, plus the 122 VFO). Is it hard to beat a classic johnson? Jimmie, go to your remaining classic johnson and turn it on. See if it turns you on. |
Scorecard on WT Docket 05-235
From: "Alun L. Palmer" on Mon 7 Nov 2005 04:03
wrote in From: "Alun L. Palmer" on Sun, Nov 6 2005 9:25 am wrote in news:1130386378.660926.152330 Alun, my posting to my severest critic (Jimmie) did not involve your residency. However, it might be worth it to point out a few things about Internet access and basic U.S. law. I am a US resident. I have a green card (which is actually pink). So, you are offended that I mentioned "foreigners"? I didn't call you out by name. This newsgroup goes everywhere the Internet goes. The Internet is worldwide now. As a United States CITIZEN I'm concerned about United States law as it applies to United States citizens. Last I looked, United States law was NOT set by foreign citizens. The point is not whether comments by aliens have to be considered by the FCC as a matter of law. Doubtless you are right in pointing out that they don't. The FCC regulates all civil radio in the United States. That regulatory power is set by two Acts of Congress (laws). Congress itself was established by the Constitution of the United States. Last I looked, NO foreign government had any power to change United States law. However, my impression is that the FCC neither knows nor cares about the citizenship of those who post comments. If you think they should, and there is certainly a case for that, then you should tell them, instead of skewing your interpretation of the comments. It is my contention that the FCC Staff and Commissioners know rather more than the basics of United States law and to which country they owe allegiance to...on the job and in their heart. There is no need for me to tell the FCC that they work for the United States. They are well aware of that and no further comment is necessary. So, I've "skewed" my "interpretation" by "mis-categorization" of 2 out of 3703 filings? That is some heinous crime? I've labeled them on *MY* tally as "indeterminate" and thus not affecting *MY* percentages. Both of them were FOR the NPRM. We can't see how Joe Speroni counted those. Did I "skew" my "interpretation" of a west coast English teacher's Comment AGAINST the NPRM even though she said up front that she has no license and is not desiring to get one. Joe Speroni counts her as "pro-CW." I said publicly that I'm NOT posting this "score card" publicly any more. Too many are terribly touchy (a few totally outraged) about it and it offends them, poor dears. However, the FCC has no capability to divide up the responses except by whether or not they have an FCC licence, which arguably they shouldn't even do, as responses from non-hams like you ought to be considered. No?!? I've been TOLD (on 25 Jan 99 in WT Docket 98-143) by an Amateur Extra that I MUST NOT EVER be allowed to comment on ANY amateur radio regulation! [search for "Robeson" on that date] I have been TOLD by non-military-service non-veterans what the military IS and that I am "wrong" in what I said about that. I have been TOLD by those who got their degrees long ago that human laws somehow override physical laws, therefore amateur radio is "different" than every other radio service. Brian Shoemaker, on a 31 October 2005 filing said outright in his Comment that "the only voice that should be heard on the current issue of rule changes to the HF bands are the users of the bands." Shoemaker is PRO-code, therefore, by the Rules of Engagement in THIS newsgroup (where pro-code rules) his territorial imperative is "correct!" Is it? Joe Speroni's "analysis" on his website is "NOT skewed" according to the local newsgroup Judge of what is "right" and "wrong." Anyone NOT for morse code is "skewed" and "mistaken" and just plain "wrong" in here. They have TOLD us. shrug Oh, wow, all those self-righteous TELLING ME WHAT TO DO! :-) |
Scorecard on WT Docket 05-235
|
Scorecard on WT Docket 05-235
|
Scorecard on WT Docket 05-235
|
Scorecard on WT Docket 05-235
From: on Mon, Nov 7 2005 5:59 pm
wrote: Considering how long you've held onto your Johnson, I'd try not to imagine the state of yours... My E. F. Johnson Viking Messenger still meets manufacturer's specifications. My johnson still works fine. Next question... No wonder you aren't attached... "Attached"? In what way? I don't have a conjoined twin, if that's what you mean. You are NOT married? Are NOT a parent? Considering all the talk about your "classic johnson" that's surprising! All existing amateurs could be affected. By your "classic johnson?" Tsk, tsk! What's "not nice" about stating the facts, Len? Your disdain of the ARS is not a secret. I'm not in favor of the Amateur Radiotelegraphy Society. I'm not in favor of CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS in the amateur radio service. To NOT love an amateur morseman is to "hate ALL amateur radio licensees?" I think not. NPRM 05-143 is solely about the MORSE CODE TEST, Jimmie. Actually not. It's also an R&O, and has lots of policy statements from FCC. BAD MISTAKE, Jimmie. Go stand in the corner. "NPRM" is an acronym for Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. It is just a notice. "R&O" is a familiar term for Report and Order. A Report and Order MAKES a regulation. An NPRM and R&O are NOT the "same." So you had a shorty connected to your compact Johnson. Quite appropriate.... Tsk. You are overly concerned with "johnsons," Jimmie. Is your middle name in "James P. Miccolis" standing for PETER? What *is* your problem, Len? Maybe because I don't have a "classic johnson?" You're misdirecting away from the point about cb. This thread was originally about WT Docket 05-235. That Docket has NO relation to Citizens Band Radio Service. You don't affect me much at all, Len. ...and you don't post a lot in this newsgroup... I appreciate all sorts of classics. Tsk, you and Davie "appreciate" those "classic johnsons" too much... You can keep whatever you want, Len. But I find it odd that you would hold onto your tube-filled Johnson for so long. After all, you're always lecturing us about "change" and "new technology" and all that sort of rot. "Rot?" How is your 1990s "original design" "tube-filled" "state of the art" ham rig doing? Any more "neighbors" come over to gush over your expertise in making it? Did they ever gush over your classic johnson? Many items are routinely referred to by the manufacturer's name. Hams do it all the time when describing their rigs. For example, just considering radio sets, I've owned seven Heathkits, two RMEs, three Nationals, two Hallicrafters, one Gonset, seven Southgates and yes, at least four different Johnsons. Could you ever get any of them to work? Why? You've obviously got the most experience dealing with one of the smallest Johnsons ever produced. Dave and I are more interested in the bigger Johnsons, such as the Valiant (I had one) and the Viking 2 (I had two of those, plus the 122 VFO). Is it hard to beat a classic johnson? Jimmie, go to your remaining classic johnson and turn it on. See if it turns you on. |
Scorecard on WT Docket 05-235
|
Scorecard on WT Docket 05-235
wrote: Bill Sohl wrote: wrote in message oups.com... Bill Sohl wrote: wrote in message ups.com... cut ADA wasn't needed because the FCC had already provided a waiver process. Did code waivers come first, or ADA? I I think the ADA may predate waivers... but that isn't of any importance anyway. I think it is. IMHO anyway. The ADA didn't force anyone to immediately do anything. Most or much of the ADA impact has been with new accomodations. Application of ADA in existing situations has usually been the reult of a complaint by an individual or a group of individuals. Exactly - and *nobody complained*. wrong agian nobody listened to the complaints of americans on the subject I know at least one fellow that did complain It took backdoor diplomacy by a foreign King to get waivers, not advocacy by any US group. disgusting that it took going to Jordan to ask for freedom in the USA , and an absolute disgrace to the USA cut Which is why further discussion on this is a waste of my time. I'll wait to see what the FCC does before continuing this hypothetical. I think it's worthwhile to consider where a path may lead before going that way. when there is not real chance it will go that way cut On 4 of the HF bands, there are parts of the band that are for Extras only. Which clearly is additional operating privileges. But not *different* operating privileges! (I should have said it that way from the beginning!) IOW, what's the difference between operating on, say, 14,030 kHz vs. 14,020 kHz using the same mode and power level? What additional knowledge or skills are needed for the lower frequency that aren't needed for the higher one? It could be claimed that since the Extra written isn't required to use 14,030, why is it an absolute requirement to use 14,020? Particularly for folks who have a really tough time memorizing/understanding all the stuff in the written tests? By allowing waivers *in principle*, the whole quagmire opens up to question all test requirements. no it does not However I will grant you in makes it hardert to sustain each level beyond the first test. the first test is justified legaly by the term of the ITY treaty. each test after that one becomes harder and harder to justify on a legal basis but the waivers were allowed already in principle so that horse has left the barn years ago The ADA argument could be brought that all that additional theory in the Extra written isn't an absolute requirement because it's not directly related to the privileges gained. I doubt it, but for now see no need to discuss or debate the point UNLESS someone actually goes there. Just the opposite - because if they go there, and cite the precedent, what possible argument could be used against them? that the US has had a series of license tied to freq prevlegges granting more prevledge to more learned ops OTOH I agree with you to point the arguement is weak But I support an Ideal of ONE class of license for all and in practice would support (as opposed to merely accepting what is likely to result in the R&O) 2 class at most ( a "Novice" and full prevledges) BTW that is MY position not NCI's and just becuase I am No Coders doesn't mean other nocoders fell eetc..... cut |
Scorecard on WT Docket 05-235
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:06 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com