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.

wrote:

Stay tuned...the future of U.S. amateur radio is being made,
like it or not.

And you'll STILL not be a part of it, one way or the other.

Just another sideline sitter.........

Steve, K4YZ

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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