Dave Heil wrote:
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.

BBBWWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Dave wins the "Made Me Snort My Coffee Backwards Because I Was
Laughing So Hard" award!

kaaaaaaaaaaa-BAM!

73

Steve, K4YZ

wrote:
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.

Snip

Let's make the math easier:

Against NPRM (note 2) 1133 [32.94%] 574 [36.54%]
Test Extra Only (note 4) 610 [17.73%] 336 [21.39%]
________
____________
50.67%
57.93%

For NPRM (note 3) 1697 [49.33%] 661 [42.08%]

The future of U.S. amateur radio is being made, like it or not.

If the FCC were mandated to accept the simple majority of
comments, either way you look at it, Morse Code testing (in the United
Staes) in one form or another would be staying for some time to come.

Steve, K4YZ

wrote:
From: on Tues 1 Nov 2005 16:35
wrote:
From: on Oct 29, 4:44 am
wrote:
From: on Thurs, Oct 27 2005 3:41 pm
wrote:
From: on Tues, Oct 25 2005 2:30 am
wrote:
From: on Oct 24, 3:39 am
Alun L. Palmer wrote:

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? :-)

I have seen that person's results and how those results were obtained.
They're more accurate than your results.

I don't apply the title "expert" to myself or the person who compiled
the scorecard.
Nor do I apply the title "expert" to *you*, Len.

What's to "analyze?" It's called READING, Jimmie. Even
children can do that! :-)

Obviously you're not too good at it, Len ;-)

Let's see...up to the end of 31 October there were 3,680
filings of which 240 were of the "indeterminate" kind.

According to *you*. How do we know you analyzed them correctly?

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."

That's not the whole story, Len.

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.

Not at all, Len. If there's any "fudging" going on, it's *yours*.

It's interesting to note that you accuse others of "fudging" without
even knowing who they are or what methods they used...but *you*
are incapable of any error....

Also interesting how you claim to know others' motivations but won't
reveal
your own.

Now about those "indeterminates"....

If a person makes multiple filings that are not identical, you count
them
as separate comments, not duplicates, right? Someone who files both
comments and reply comments gets multiple 'votes' in your count even
though
they are only one person repeating themselves...right?

In your 'scorecard' you alternate the terms 'comments' and 'filings',
but in fact you
count comments, reply comments, the NPRM itself, and almost anything
else as
if it were a 'comment'...right?

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.

And even your flawed methods show that the *majority* do NOT
support the NPRM. The majority do NOT want all Morse Code
testing to end.

You dislike that.

Oh no, not at all. The percentages tell the story very well.

Obviously, since the comment period start
showed that MORE were in favor of the NPRM than against.

There you go, claiming to know others' motivations but not revealing
your own.

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? :-)

Not at all. I know where it is. So do several other rrappers.

Can't you find it, Len?

Besides, what good would it do to tell you where it is? You'd
simply attack the person who did the compilation, make fun
of them, behave according to your classic profile.

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.

There ya go, living in the past, Len.

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?

Yes. I found it in a matter of seconds. But a search engine isn't
necessary.

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...

Not me, Len. You're the one who acts that way.

The majority want at least code testing for Extra. That's the fact -
like it or not...

Now here's the big issue, and proof of your inaccuracy:

You claim to have read and understood ALL the filings on 05-235.
You've made a big deal about that, repeated it over and over like a
mantra, and demanded that others do the same before they dare to
even ask you a question.

But if you'd actually read all those filings, you'd know where to find
the
information I refer to. The information that shows 55% of commenters
who address the Morse Code test issue want at least some Morse Code
testing retained. And the information that only 45% of commenters who
address the Morse Code test issue want complete elimination of the
Morse Code test.

Since you can't find that website, it's clear you *didn't* read all the
filings
on WT 05-235, or at least didn't understand them.

And that's a fact. Like it or not......

"K4YZ" wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:
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.

(Snip)

Let's make the math easier:

Against NPRM (note 2) 1133 [32.94%] 574 [36.54%]
Test Extra Only (note 4) 610 [17.73%] 336 [21.39%]
________
____________
50.67%
57.93%

For NPRM (note 3) 1697 [49.33%] 661 [42.08%]

If the FCC were mandated to accept the simple majority of
comments, either way you look at it, Morse Code testing (in the United
Staes) in one form or another would be staying for some time to come.
Steve, K4YZ

IF the FCC were so mandated, but we all know they are
not bound by any "voting" analogy. What also is obvious
to those that have been around long enough is that
the current "score" is a dramatic shift from opinions
within the amateur community as compared to prior
efforts to "score" support (98-143) or back when the
first efforts to bring a nocode license began.

Playing your number realignment, you must admit
then that 68% of commentors DO support ending
code for General. THAT is dramatic in comparison
to past opinion analysis.

Consider too that
IF the FCC retained any level of code testing for
Extra then the FCC would/will have to reintroduce
waivers as the international treaty no longer provides
absolute minimal code requirements for any level.
That's a path that FCC just won't go down.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

And in agreement with what you wrote, IF the FCC had meant this to be a
popularity contest, then it would have been called a VOTE.

IF the FCC had meant to gather information and rationale regarding the
requirement for or against Morse Code testing then it would have been called
a COMMENT.

Care to look and see what the FCC called it?


Jim




If the FCC were mandated to accept the simple majority of
comments, either way you look at it, Morse Code testing (in the United
Staes) in one form or another would be staying for some time to come.
Steve, K4YZ

IF the FCC were so mandated, but we all know they are
not bound by any "voting" analogy. What also is obvious
to those that have been around long enough is that
the current "score" is a dramatic shift from opinions
within the amateur community as compared to prior
efforts to "score" support (98-143) or back when the
first efforts to bring a nocode license began.

From: Bill Sohl on Nov 3, 7:24 am

"K4YZ" wrote in message
wrote:


If the FCC were mandated to accept the simple majority of
comments, either way you look at it, Morse Code testing (in the United
Staes) in one form or another would be staying for some time to come.

IF the FCC were so mandated, but we all know they are
not bound by any "voting" analogy. What also is obvious
to those that have been around long enough is that
the current "score" is a dramatic shift from opinions
within the amateur community as compared to prior
efforts to "score" support (98-143) or back when the
first efforts to bring a nocode license began.

"Polls?" "Support?" About the ONLY thing available
there is ARRL writings, hardly an unbiased source of
"poll" information. Let's go through some history -

I started this "score card" posting at the beginning of
August as part of my own desire to get some "visibility"
into opinions as filed with the FCC. It isn't "official"
except the tallying has been done in an honest manner with
the best accuracy...such accuracy continuously verified
with the ECFS search engine totals for specified dates.

As of 1 PM EDT on 3 November 2005, there been 3,687 filings
in WT Docket 05-235 between the 2005 dates of 15 July to and
including 31 October. I've read ALL of those filings. I
have copies of ALL of those filings. Each and every filing
is available to anyone who has Internet access to the FCC.

In 1990 there was NO Internet for the public (it went public
in 1991). The Comments and Replies on 90-53 were only
visible by either subscribing to a copy service of the FCC or
going to their DC reading room in person. Just the same, the
final Report and Order DID create the no-code-test Technician
class license in 1991 and the numbers in that class have not
ceased growing in 14 years. Did the ARRL have some kind of
"poll" on those back then? I don't recall any from them or
from any other source. The MOVEMENT towards no-code-test
had begun years before.

In 1998 there was Internet access to the public and the FCC
had gone on-line with the beginning of their ECFS. They had
not fully organized clerical tasks and an examination of
WT Docket 98-143 will show several Petitions mixed in with
those for the "Restructuring" NPRM. That Docket was
extended more than once, finally getting an official end on
15 Jan 99. The only "poll" on those filings was done by
Leroy (Larry) Klose II. A masterful and complex task
involving several different subjects of the NPRM, it is
still in the ECFS as submitted, can be found by looking just
past 15 January 1999. The total comment time was about 11
months...from the first appearance date of first 98-143
comments to the official close of comments on 15 Jan 99.
The number of filings in that 11-month period were only
about 2200. Did the ARRL supply any "official poll" on
98-143? I don't recall any or even if they mentioned
Larry Klose' fine tabulation. Roughly 400 filings have
been submitted in the YEARS after the close of comments on
98-143, most past the final R&O 99-412 which essentially
voided any need for "more comments." Anyone with Internet
access can see all of those filings.

WT Docket 05-235 (about NPRM 05-143) has had 3,687 filings
in about 15 weeks, an average of over 240 per week. Has
there been any "official poll" from the ARRL about 05-235?
I haven't seen any. I haven't seen any from anyone else
which is one reason for my creation of this "score card."

Supposedly there IS another "poll" or "score card" done
elsewhere. A URL or other website information source has
not been revealed publicly in here. Those who are
interested in someone else's "score card" can go there...
or they can go in and READ ALL of them.

The only "polling" information I've seen on the code test
issue has been in the editorials of ARRL publications,
hardly an unbiased source about morse code use. The ARRL
has conditioned the thinking of generations of amateurs
into the belief that morse code skill was the very
epitome of amateur radio. On the other hand, the ARRL
membership has NEVER been greater than a quarter of all
licensed U.S. radio amateurs; as of July this year their
publicly-stated membership was only 20 percent. The
ARRL claims to "represent all amateurs" yet they will
only allow MEMBERS to vote on anything. They represent
NONE of those desiring to GET INTO amateur radio. The
ARRL is simply PRO-code-test and their ONLY Comment on
05-235 so far (filed 31 October, last official day) is
largely a STALLING tactic to attempt HOLDING any final
R&O until the far future...i.e., they IMPEDE progress.

I am ceasing public posting of any "score card" on WT
Docket 05-235. The official end of the Comment period
was reached on 31 October...but the official end of the
Replies to Comments period isn't until 14 November. I
will forward private e-mail tallies to those I select.
You are getting one, Bill.

I have received too many false charges of "inaccuracy"
and general "dishonesty" about my "score card" to make
it useless continuing this tally in public. NONE of
those crybaby finger-pointers have provided any
"improvements" to tallying opinions nor of providing
"greater accuracy." They have NOT proved a single charge
of "inaccuracy" nor of "dishonesty." They DO continue
to obscure this important issue in U.S. amateur radio
regulations with long, long, long postings alleged to
be "just questions" or "clarifications." They are
neither. They are HECKLING. Malicious heckling
probably done in hopes that I will not have any time
left but to post replies to their "just questions."

Not to worry on time. I can MAKE time for continuing
observation of NPRM 05-143 progress. I stand my ground
on what I've posted in public so far. Those who
charge "dishonesty" or "inaccuracy" had damn well
PROVE their point with EXACT locations. Negative
criticsm does nothing but further the "Animal House"
behavior that has polluted this venue called a news-
group for the last year.

wrote:
From: on Tues 1 Nov 2005 16:35
wrote:
From: on Oct 29, 4:44 am
wrote:
From: on Thurs, Oct 27 2005 3:41 pm
wrote:
From: on Tues, Oct 25 2005 2:30 am
wrote:
From: on Oct 24, 3:39 am
Alun L. Palmer wrote:

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.

You've said over and over that removing the Morse Code test would have
*no*
effect on existing licensees. Now you say you can't guarantee there
would be
no effect..

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?"

Because 27 MHz was/is not a good choice for short-range land-mobile
radio communications like cb.

Because the FCC did not have the resources to enforce its own
rules, and the cb folks did not have the discipline to adhere to
those rules.

Amateurs weren't using their former 11 meter band enough.

How do you know? You weren't a radio amateur then and
you aren't one now.

My reading of the history says that hams got 11 meters just
after WW2 as a sort of compensation for the near-total loss of
160 (a very popular band before WW2) to LORAN. By 1958,
hams had 15 meters and more access to 160. So FCC
reassigned 11 meters.

The fact that FCC could reassign 11 meters without a
treaty change was a big part of the decision, too.

The FCC is NOT "dealing with" CB now.

Sure they are. Where do you think freebanders come from?
Or the illegal makers and sellers of 11 meter amplifiers? Or
the intruders into the 10 and 12 meter ham bands?

Why do you care?

Because I don't want what happened to cb to happen to
amateur radio. It seems to me that *you* would like for
amateur radio to become just like cb.

YOU were NOT INVOLVED with radio of any kind
in 1958.

Yes, I was.

YOU were NOT AWARE of the FCC in 1958.

Yes, I was.

YOU were NOT AWARE of much of anything in 1958.

In 1958 I was four years old. I was aware of lots of things
at that age. A lot more than you'd give a four-year-old
credit for.

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.

That's what I don't want ham radio to become, Len.

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.

You're busy, busy, busy with trying to change a radio service you are
NOT
INVOLVED in..

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!

No, it isn't.

YOUR "amateur world" will
cease to exist then, right? The "world as you know it" will
disappear!

Not exactly. But my enjoyment of amateur radio would be affected, or
even destroyed. Which means I, an existing amateur, would be
affected.

Maybe you want the amateur bands to become like the cb channels..

Maybe you want me to disappear, too, right? :-)

Obviously *you* want *me* to disappear.

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?

I just type the words, Len. Why not just answer the question?

I think you want amateur radio to become more and more like
cb.

Are you forgetting I'm "not involved
in amateur radio," therefore I have "no business telling
amateur radio what to do?"

Where did I say that? You can say whatever you want. The
truth and validity of what you say is another matter.

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.

I've never said you can't have and express opinions, Len.

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.

How do you know it wasn't evolution?

WE humans
don't all think alike and God for sure didn't make YOU
supreme judge.

I know - and nobody made *you* the supreme judge either, despite the
fact you think and act like you are.

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.

That's SUCH A TIRED CLICHE' you coders use.

Not a cliche. The truth. You have chosen not to avail yourself of that
opportunity.

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.

No, *you* weren't. You were allowed to make certain adjustments
to transmitters bought and paid for by others, as part of a large
team (a whole battalion!) of people.

But *you* as an individual weren't "on HF" then.

Sweetums, I'm very tired of YOUR ASSUMED "superiority" and
your terribly CONDESCENDING "let them eat cake if they have
no bread" to peasants.

What "superiority"? What 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.

Which does not allow you to operate an Amateur Radio station.

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?

There was a time when a First Class 'Phone or even a Second Class
was a near-guarantee of a decent job in "radio". That time is gone. I
knew it was on the way out even in the 1970s - that's why I went for
degrees in Electrical Engineering.

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.

So your claim is meaningless.

Will existing Amateur Extras lose their license and/or
privileges? I doubt it. Same with Generals.

Your doubt isn't a guarantee.

Technicians
WILL have a chance to enjoy more of their hobby with
increased frequency privileges.

No, they won't! You are mistaken, Len.

Obviously you haven't read the entire NPRM - or maybe you
don't understand it. Typical.

If FCC enacts the NPRM as written, *no* class of license
will gain *any* operating privileges. Technicians will still
be VHF/UHF only, unless they have passed a Morse Code
test. No HF for Techs who haven't passed a Morse Code test
under the NPRM.

The NPRM specifically *denies* giving any existing licensees
any more privileges. They specifically point out, again and
again, that if the Morse Code test is removed, existing
Technicians need only pass the General written exam to
get lots of HF privileges.

Those Techs who *have* passed a Morse Code test will retain
their HF privileges - consisting of Morse Code on parts of 80,
40, 15 and 10 meters, plus SSB voice on part of 10 meters.

If Element 1 is removed, the only way for a non-code-tested
Tech to get *any* HF/MF privileges is for that non-code-tested
Tech to pass the General written.

FCC also repeatedly points out their commitment to an
incentive licensing system of three license class levels.

That's the way the NPRM is written.

Why are you so against that?

I'm against any reductions in Morse Code or written
testing. I think Morse Code testing is a good thing
for the Amateur Radio Service.

In fact, I think the dropping of the Morse Code
test for Technician, back in 1991, was a big mistake.

Just my opinion.

Why do you want to hold Techs in their present
Ghetto?

What "ghetto"? VHF/UHF?

Ah, you ENJOY being "elite" and looking down on
"inferiors!" :-)

I don't look down on anyone, Len.

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!"

It's very applicable. That's why you don't like it.

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.

Why should I bother? I describe the big picture - you'll fill in the
details.

World War II ended in 1945, Jimmie. "My street" was developed
beginning in 1960.

Which is post-WW2. I was right!

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.

I was right about the zoning, too.

Little boxes on the hillside (actually at the foot of the hill...)

WRONG.

Yep, they're actually on the hillside! I was right again.

"Little boxes" of 1400 to 2400 square feet on third-
acre land parcels, each one worth in excess of a half million
now.

2400 sf isn't a big house, Len. They're little boxes on the hillside,
all right.

And a half-million is a pretty lowpriced house in suburban LA,
isn't it?

Do you think the owner of a half-million-dollar house is better than
the owner of a quarter-million-dollar house?

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.

"Little boxes, on the hillside, little boxes made of ticky-tacky..."

If you are trying to be "accurate" you've failed miserably.

Actually it looks like I'm dead-on accurate except for the
boxes being on the hillside rather than at the bottom.

"There's a pink one, and a blue one, and a yellow one, and a purple
one"

I have topographic maps of my area. Do you?

Yes, I have topographic maps of my area.

"And they're all made out of ticky-tacky and they all look just the
same"

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.

So my hypothetical has already happened! Sunuvagun!

Worse
for you, I was the speaker for our neighborhood back a decade
plus ago.

Why is it worse for me? Did you win the debate?

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).

If it was a good speech, it would have mattered. But you *LOST*.

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).

And you *opposed* the changes, right? You *opposed* what others,
including your local elected Government officials, thought was
best...right?

And you *LOST*...

Do NOT tell ME what the zoning changes are in MY neighborhood
are, Jimmie.

Is that an order? Who made you Supreme Newsgroup Ruler?

YOU are NOT INVOLVED here.

Just like *you* are not involved in amateur radio.....

If you need information, just ask, don't make up stories.

I was being hypothetical, Len. You seem to have trouble dealing in
abstractions.

Would you support and accept that sort of change, Len?

I accepted it, as did my neighbors. We did NOT "support" it.

You opposed it, then, and only accepted it because you LOST
the debate.

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.

That's nice. But you folks still failed to stop the change.

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.

"ALL" the view? You can't see the sky?

Was it 'the end of the world as you knew it'?

Why were you so against that change? Ah, you ENJOYED being
"elite" and looking down (literally!) on your neighbors! ;-)

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.

They applied almost exactly.

Let's recap....

More than 40 years ago, you bought the house on Lanark Street.
Classic little ticky-tacky box on the hillside, lots of nice things
about the
house and the area. Zoning (which is The Government) protected
you from certain changes.

Then someone wanted to change the zoning, because their vision
of the area and its future were different from your own. You
opposed the change even though it would have no direct effect
on your house. But The Government prevailed, the zoning
changed, and the new *two story* houses were built. And the
value of your property continued to rise.

Was it The Government's role to always keep things As They Were
When You Bought Your House? To guarantee your "view" regardless
of the wishes and needs of those "downhill" fro you?

Seems like you thought it was.

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.

Ah - you expect a different branch of The Government to protect you
from
that.

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.

2 blocks away isn't next door or across the street.

[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.

You wanted to keep your neighborhood frozen in
the standards and practices of the 1960s, Len.

The analogy is near-perfect. You reacted exactly as predicted.
You opposed a change that would only affect you *mentally* and/or
*emotionally*, and expected The Government to place *your*
desires above those of the other property owners.

At least in the case of the zoning, you were in the affected
community. In the case of amateur radio, you're the outsider
trying to get those who are in the community to accept the
changes *you* want, and The Government to make you
happy........

One other analysis that I've seen is by a Northern Mariana Islands callsign http://ah0a.org/FCC/05-235/ --- it may be the site that N2EY refers to.

If it is, N2EY's blustering is a puzzlement because the results at that site are strikingly similar to your tabulation, with 45% fully in favor of the NRPM (drop the test) and 55% in favor of keeping some level of CW testing.

He classifies the valid responses on the same basis as you ("For NRPM", "Keep the current test", and "Extra Only"). Then he has three categories of "Others" which aren't included in his tally (Dupes and other junk).

The Man in the Maze
QRV from Baboquivari Peak, AZ

Iitoi wrote:

the results at that
site are strikingly similar to your tabulation, with 45% fully in favor
of the NRPM (drop the test) and 55% in favor of keeping some level of
CW testing.

"Strikingly similar"?

Len Anderson claims the tally is 49.33% for and 50.67% against the NPRM
(either partly or completely). AH0A claims 45% for and 55% against.
That's a pretty big difference, particularly when Len posts his results
to four significant figures and claims to be
"accurate".

Whose count is correct?

Len claims to have read and understood all the "filings" - yet he could
not find the
AH0A count, which is clearly mentioned in AH0A's filing.

So - did Len *really* read and understand ALL the filings?

He classifies the valid responses on the same basis as you ("For NRPM",
"Keep the current test", and "Extra Only"). Then he has three
categories of "Others" which aren't included in his tally (Dupes and
other junk).

Yet the results are different - by a considerable percentage.

Why?

73 de Jim, N2EY

Bill Sohl wrote:
"K4YZ" wrote in message
oups.com...

If the FCC were mandated to accept the simple majority of
comments, either way you look at it, Morse Code testing (in the United
Staes) in one form or another would be staying for some time to come.
Steve, K4YZ

IF the FCC were so mandated, but we all know they are
not bound by any "voting" analogy.

Exactly! FCC need only consider the comments, not act on
them.

What also is obvious
to those that have been around long enough is that
the current "score" is a dramatic shift from opinions
within the amateur community as compared to prior
efforts to "score" support (98-143) or back when the
first efforts to bring a nocode license began.

I disagree, Bill. Or rather, I'd say it's not that clear.

Back in 1998, NCI supported the concept of "5 wpm
now, complete elimination when the treaty changes".
That position got about 45% support (check Carl's
post of around that time when he reported KC8EPO's
tally of comments).

Now the NPRM proposes "complete elimination now
that the treaty has changed" but the support is
still about 45% of commenters.

So the support for total code test elimination isn't much different
than it was 7 years ago.

Playing your number realignment, you must admit
then that 68% of commentors DO support ending
code for General.

Yep. Exactly as proposed by ARRL.

THAT is dramatic in comparison
to past opinion analysis.

We don't really know that, do we?
There was never a serious proposal
before that suggested "code test for
Extra only" that I know of.

Consider too that
IF the FCC retained any level of code testing for
Extra then the FCC would/will have to reintroduce
waivers as the international treaty no longer provides
absolute minimal code requirements for any level.

Why would FCC "have to" do waivers? IIRC there's no
mention of waivers in the NPRM. The treaty's been
changed for almost 2-1/2 years but no waivers.

That's a path that FCC just won't go down.

Probably not.

One simple solution is the "Canadian compromise": Keep
code testing but change how it is scored. One method is
to change the requirement for Element 3 (General written)
to the following:

Element 3 can be passed by getting an ~85% grade on the
35 written questions *or* a ~75% grade and a passing mark
on the code test.

That way there's no "lowering of standards" yet the Morse Code
test is not a mandatory pass-fail standalone test any more.

73 de Jim, N2EY

which reminds me - time to update The Pool...