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.

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

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.

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."

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?!?

:-)

Must not be important to Jim.

Who made you the moderator?

The same one who made YOU "moderator!" :-)

Maybe not. Jim is self-appointed.

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?!?

True enough.

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.

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!

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!"

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...

Jim thinks of himself as Godless. But he thinks pretty highly of
himself.

All this "tif for tat." Can't keep up. Jim must be retired now, too.

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 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.

wrote:
Scorecard in the NCTA v. PCTA Amateur Opinions on NPRM 05-143:

As of 31 Oct 05, WT Docket 05-235 Comments

Not just Comments, Len. You counted Reply Comments and other filings,
including the NPRM itself, right?

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%]

WHOA!

You mean that the majority did *NOT* support the NPRM?

The *MAJORITY* of filings do *NOT* support complete elimination
of the Morse Code test?

Even by *YOUR* counting methods?

Sunuvagun!

The majority wants at least some Morse Code testing, Len - like it or
not!

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 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.

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

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.