My, oh my. Lennie's Rely's runneth over yet again.


wrote in message
oups.com...
From: Iitoi on Fri 4 Nov 2005 01:34


Wrote:

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!

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.

That certainly seems to be the one. Nice and colorful, looks great
in any GUI display. :-)

Joe Speroni (AH0A) has to be taken for what he is: An absolute
morseman who values morse code skill over everything else in
United States amateur radio. Speroni is also a Petitioner to the
FCC who has yet to have his Petitions granted. shrug :-)

I put Speroni into a category of one who has a LOT of emotional
baggage tied up in morse code and code testing.

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.

No "puzzlement" to me. :-) Jimmie has been consistently
against on just about everything I've ever written in here.
Since I am NOT in favor of morse code testing (as are several
others), he loves to "get on my (and their's) case" to show
"how mistaken" I (and they) am.

Jimmie ("N2EY," which any day might become his legal name) has
now resorted to attacking my choice of residence (the one I
chose in May of 1963) and attempts ridicule of that location
by partial lyrics of an old pop song ("little houses made of
ticky-tacky"). :-) TS. I'll turn my collar around and get
out my punch for his card. [he's probably never heard of the
"TS Card" that was common in the military]

Speroni's "Analysis" is probably no more "flawed" than mine.
The difference is in his categorization and the fact that he
has NOT posted it in here. I began posting results almost
daily from the beginning of August; Speroni has ONE display
and MUST be taken as "accurate" (since he is an unabashed
morse code advocate). Speroni hasn't been subjected to the
heckling I've received in here on a regular basis since
September. :-)

Speroni counts REPLIES to Comments as "duplicates" in order
to arrive at a code-favored percentage in his "results." We
could extend that to questionable categorization of husband-
wife teams filing separately...but that effort isn't worth
the time wasted for "accuracy." There's also some obvious
(if one checks the posted address) of family members filing
separately. Lots and lots of variations of "inaccuracy"
charges possible!

Note also the subtle biasing of the icon indicators on
Speroni's "analysis" sheet. All those against code testing
have the red slant bar across them. All those for code
testing are green or blue with no ("do not do") red slant
bars. Those for-code icons are also clear, nothing to show
that they are the exact OPPOSITE of the NPRM. :-)

My "percentage" was shown strictly as an INDICATOR of the
opinion. What the FCC uses for decisions is up to them.
My "score card" isn't "official." Neither is Speroni's.

If anyone bothered to look at my continuing series of "score
card" postings, they would have seen a most decided "FOR"
position on the NPRM early in the comment period (better than
2:1). By the official notice date in the Federal Register,
VERY late in my opinion, the pro-code-test comments had
increased but not yet achieved "supremacy" over the no-code-
test comments OR the "code test for extra" folks.

Here's an important fact AND a big unknown about the
comments: According to the statements in both the NPRM
and Federal Register, the comment period begins ONLY on
the FR notice date. WE citizens don't know if the FCC
will consider all those comments made BEFORE the notice
date! If the FCC doesn't, then the number of CONSIDERED
filings drop to nearly half and the "percentages" get
skewed. Speroni did NOT mention that in his "analysis."
I did, from day one of the FR notice. The Federal Register
notices are legally binding on federal law, regulations,
and rules.

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).

Speroni has NOT "classified" or even included 10 filings
that showed up under 31 Oct 05, all done by LAW STUDENTS.
As of 2 PM EDT on 4 Nov 05, those "moot court" exercise
papers number 17 (3 are unidentified as to individual and
were copied and filed as one filing by the FCC). The total
number of filings up to the official end of Comments period
are now 3,697, not the lower number Speroni shows for today.

All this doesn't matter in RRAP as far as Miccolis is
concerned. Anyone favoring code testing is "accurate" to
him and anyone not favoring code testing is "inaccurate!"

Quod erat demonstrandum (for years in here). :-)



[a fan of author Tony Hillerman novels]

wrote in message
ups.com...
Bill Sohl wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
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?

It really makes no difference because the reality is that about 66%
favor ending code for General.

I say it depends on what the question is. If you're talking about the
General, there's a clear majority to eliminate the code test for that
license. But if you're talking about the Extra, there's a clear
majority to keep the code test for *that* license.

If you're talking about complete code test elimination, which the NPRM
proposes, there's a clear majority *against* that.

Given an absolute majority
opinion ro end code... at least for General, then we can be
sure the FCC isn't going to retain any code at all because to
do so once again means a reinstatement of code medica
waivers.

I disagree!

The medical waivers came about because of the request of a
now-dead King to a president who left office 13 years ago,
ADA had nothing to do with it IIRC.

But the ADA wil surely be a part of it IF FCC retains
any code testing going forward.

Does anyone think otherwise?

Yes - me.

If medical waivers were a consideration, FCC could have
immediately reinstituted them in July 2003, claiming that
the only reason they didn't exist before was the treaty. But
they didn't.

They could have dropped code immediately too but that
didn't happen either. The wheels of government change turn ever
so slowly.

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?

Obviously not!

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?

Bottom line again is "who cares?"

Obviously Len does - just look at how he carries on about it.....

Well I surely don't care.

In the scheme of
things the results as tabulated by etiher Len or Joe are a
solid base for the end of code testing.

For General, yes. For Extra, the opposite is true.

For extra the opposite is just barely a majority...I wouldn't
hang any hopes on that meaning anything to the FCC.

But as we both know, FCC is under no mandate to
follow the majority opinion.

Exactly!

The "let's keep it just
for Extra" group isn't even united on what speed it should
be. Most will accept (IMHO) retention of 5wpm for
Extra, but some have called for a return to the days
of yesteryear and would like 13 or 20wpm.

So we compromise on 15 wpm.

ROTFLMAO

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

----- Original Message -----
From: "W2DNE"
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Sent: Friday, November 04, 2005 6:40 PM
Subject: Scorecard on WT Docket 05-235

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Iitoi" wrote in message
...

Bill Sohl Wrote:

IF (let's be hypothetical) the FCC did retain code for
Extra, then the American Disabilities Act (ADA) will
surely be raised by someone who need only point
to the use of waivers previously and no court in
this country would rule against such a clain.

The "waivers previously" were only for the 13/20 WPM tests, and
required the applicant to have passed a 5 WPM test. TTBOMK there has
never been any waiver of 5 WPM, thus no precedent in support of such a
claim.

The ONLY reason waivers were not extended down to 5wpm
in the past was because the FCC believed the USA could not
waive the minimal code test because of the treaty. Now
that there is no treaty requirement, the logic that lead
to waivers of 13/20 wpm can and would be extended to
a 5wpm test IF such test remains. The precident stands
based on the general application of waivers for non-treaty
established code speeds.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK


Last I checked the president stands in the white house.

I'll never claim to be a great speller.

Also last I checked there was no precedent for a waiver of 5 word-per-min.

The precident is for waivers of code testing of non-treaty
required code knowledge. It matters not if that was 20, 13
or now 5wpm. Conceptually the precident is there.

In any case, I'd agree that invoking ADA might work --- to require
possibility of test waivers for disabled, but not to disallow testing
outright.

The waivers in the past were only for disabled with a medical
certification statement.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

Bill Sohl wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
Bill Sohl wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
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?

It really makes no difference because the reality is that about 66%
favor ending code for General.

I say it depends on what the question is. If you're talking about the
General, there's a clear majority to eliminate the code test for that
license. But if you're talking about the Extra, there's a clear
majority to keep the code test for *that* license.

If you're talking about complete code test elimination, which the NPRM
proposes, there's a clear majority *against* that.

Given an absolute majority
opinion ro end code... at least for General, then we can be
sure the FCC isn't going to retain any code at all because to
do so once again means a reinstatement of code medica
waivers.

I disagree!

The medical waivers came about because of the request of a
now-dead King to a president who left office 13 years ago,
ADA had nothing to do with it IIRC.

But the ADA wil surely be a part of it IF FCC retains
any code testing going forward.

How do we know that for sure, Bill?

Does anyone think otherwise?

Yes - me.

If medical waivers were a consideration, FCC could have
immediately reinstituted them in July 2003, claiming that
the only reason they didn't exist before was the treaty. But
they didn't.

They could have dropped code immediately too but that
didn't happen either. The wheels of government change turn ever
so slowly.

Agreed!

My point is that it's not a done deal until they actually do it. And if
there were no question, they'd have done it already.

In any event, the NPRM indicates that FCC is strongly predisposed
to just eliminate Element 1 - and make *no* other changes.

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?

Obviously not!

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?

Bottom line again is "who cares?"

Obviously Len does - just look at how he carries on about it.....

Well I surely don't care.

Nor I, really. It's just an academic exercise - FCC doesn't have to go
with
majority opinion.

In the scheme of
things the results as tabulated by etiher Len or Joe are a
solid base for the end of code testing.

For General, yes. For Extra, the opposite is true.

For extra the opposite is just barely a majority.

55% is more than "just barely". Most US presidential elections are a
lot closer
(in the popular vote).

..I wouldn't
hang any hopes on that meaning anything to the FCC.

Nor I. But the fact is that the majority opinion does not support
complete
elimination of the Morse Code test.

But as we both know, FCC is under no mandate to
follow the majority opinion.

Exactly!

So why keep a scorecard at all?

The "let's keep it just
for Extra" group isn't even united on what speed it should
be. Most will accept (IMHO) retention of 5wpm for
Extra, but some have called for a return to the days
of yesteryear and would like 13 or 20wpm.

So we compromise on 15 wpm.

ROTFLMAO

Thought you'd enjoy that!

73 de Jim, N2EY

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:

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!

I'm just recalling some facts, Len. You've tried and tried to impress
with your alleged 'years in computer-modem communications' but
in fact you couldn't get ECFS to accept your filing back then. And
you make a lot of noise about when other people comment but in
fact you only sent in Reply Comments to that NPRM.

Pot...kettle

That was over six years ago.

So what? You repeatedly bring up stuff that's much older and even
less relevant.

Actually more like cast-iron pot calling stainless steel kettle....

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.

You keep bringing up history from a half-century ago, Len, as if it had

some relevance. Are you saying your 1998 Reply Comments are
irrelevant to amateur radio policy? If so, many will agree!

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.

So? Are you the sole judge of what can be discussed in a thread?

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. :-)

Your opinions are not backed by any facts, then. So we
should treat them appropriately....

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? :-)

It's what you said then and still defend. It's relevant to your
"opinions".

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.

Awwww....you want me to say "sowwy?" :-)

Why not admit your mistake and say you were wrong, and your
opinions have no basis in fact? Because that's the case, Len.

Jimmie, DROP this old argument.

You're not the boss here, Len. Probably not the boss anywhere....

It has NO BEARING on NPRM 05-143.

Sure it does. Proves your lack of reasoning skills in some areas.

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?

I don't, Len. Who is this "Jimmie" you keep bringing up?

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! :-)

Show us an example. A direct link to a posting would be good.

Posting documented facts isn't claiming expertise.

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....

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.

Point is, you exaggerated the threat you were under. And you didn't
check your facts before posting. It took me only seconds to find out
the relevant facts. One would think someone with your alleged 'years of
experience in computer-modem communications' would have checked
the facts before posting.

There's also the issue of how you treat someone who points out your
mistakes. You behave in a very unprofessional manner, Len.

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.

To quote your classic "sphincters post":

'You knew the job was dangerous when you took it'

But, WHAT DOES IT MATTER on the type of Soviet aircraft
involved then?

You exaggerated the threat you were under, Len.

YOU were NOT INVOLVED. YOU were NEVER IN
THE MILITARY!

Doesn't change the fact that *you* were mistaken.

And btw....

People of *my* generation grew up knowing that we were under
the constant threat of nuclear annihilation from missile attacks
against which there was essentially no defense. The missiles
would arrive in minutes, not hours, and if they did the job
we'd all be dust. Growing up in a big city halfway between
the nation's capital and the nation's largest city, I knew there
was little point in fallout shelters and such, because we were
within range of both land- and submarine-launched Soviet
missiles, and a prime target.

Fortunately sanity prevailed.

So don't lecture *me* about the Soviet nuclear threat, Len old boy,
because I grew up with it. You didn't.

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. :-)

Admit you were wrong about the whole age-limit thing, then.

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? :-)

What's uncivil about that?

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.

Is THAT what it's called now?!?

"Elmering" is the term applied to helping less-experienced hams to
learn.

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?

I enjoy communicating with people of all ages, Len. From little
babies to people much older than you (yes, such people do exist! ;-))

What's *your* problem? Can't you deal with young people?

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.

I do! You don't.

Keep the electronics trades knowledgeable about your progress.

Why? It's really all about money to you, isn't it?

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.

Complete with errors and misdirections.

YOU turned it
into minor-league Spanish Inquisition stuff with your
"questions" and old, old arguments from the past on very
different subjects.

I pointed out some possible inaccuracies, in your
"work", Len. That's a good thing

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.

Enough to meet my needs and most of my wants.

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.

Why?

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".

Where do you DO this "professional" stuff, Jimmie?

At work, Len. That's all you need to know.

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.

I am.

If you were really
PROUD, then you wouldn't mind revealing your employer.

I don't "mind" at all. Many people know where I work. You don't,
and that seems to bother the heck out of you. Why?

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?

Not me. I'm calm, cool and collected. You're all worked up.

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?

Because of the way you behave here, 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.

No, I don't "gotta."

But you do. Did you "pay CASH" for it, too?

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.

Does that make you a better person than someone without
digital cable?

Tsk, tsk, I guess if one is "anti-code" then one can't mention
(evil?) money? :-)

Money isn't "evil", Len.

LCD and plasma panel HD-ready TVs might be starting to come
down in price. DTV is the FUTURE, Jimmie. FCC said so.

What does that have to do with your 'scorecard', Len?

Telegraphy is the PAST.

Radiotelegraphy is the present. And the future.

ARRL don't want to admit that, but it IS.

ARRL isn't about telegraphy, Len.

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"? :-)

You just confirmed my statement.

[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!" :-)

Who wrote that, Len?

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? :-)

To a high degree of confidence, yes!

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,

Because it's their *JOB*, Len. It's not your *JOB*. You're Not
Involved.

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?"

The US Constitution, for one.

Don't you have any other hobby besides radiotelegraphy?

Oh yes.

Don't you have any other hobby than ranting on and on for years about
a test in a radio service that you are Not Involved in?

And
making some of the longest "I'm only asking 'question'" posts
in the history of newsgrouping... :-)

Your postings are longer and more frequent than mine, Len. Also
less accurate.

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.

Taken - and passed all - REAL Tests, Jimmie. No fear.

You're afraid of the Morse Code test, Len. It's a REAL test...

Even this long one. I've ANSWERED all your questions, haven't I?

Nope. Not at all.

But that's SOP for you.

Bill Sohl wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "W2DNE"
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Sent: Friday, November 04, 2005 6:40 PM
Subject: Scorecard on WT Docket 05-235

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Iitoi" wrote in message
...

Bill Sohl Wrote:

IF (let's be hypothetical) the FCC did retain code for
Extra, then the American Disabilities Act (ADA) will
surely be raised by someone who need only point
to the use of waivers previously and no court in
this country would rule against such a clain.

The "waivers previously" were only for the 13/20 WPM tests, and
required the applicant to have passed a 5 WPM test. TTBOMK there has
never been any waiver of 5 WPM, thus no precedent in support of such a
claim.

The ONLY reason waivers were not extended down to 5wpm
in the past was because the FCC believed the USA could not
waive the minimal code test because of the treaty. Now
that there is no treaty requirement, the logic that lead
to waivers of 13/20 wpm can and would be extended to
a 5wpm test IF such test remains. The precident stands
based on the general application of waivers for non-treaty
established code speeds.

True - up to a point.

It can also be argued that the precedent is limited only to
'higher-speed' code tests, and not to code testing in general.
IOW, there's a difference between a waiver of a higher level
of skill vs. a complete waiver of the skill.

As an analogy, there have been cases (not amateur radio)
where a disabled person was given additional time to
complete a test that, for everyone else, had a strict time limit.

That person essentially got a waiver of the time limit but not
of the test itself.

Opponents of the waiver said that the time limit was an
integral part of the test.

Also last I checked there was no precedent for a waiver of 5 word-per-min.

The precident is for waivers of code testing of non-treaty
required code knowledge. It matters not if that was 20, 13
or now 5wpm. Conceptually the precident is there.

But only for higher-speed tests, not for the basic skill itself.

In any case, I'd agree that invoking ADA might work --- to require
possibility of test waivers for disabled, but not to disallow testing
outright.

The waivers in the past were only for disabled with a medical
certification statement.

Which took the form of a letter from any M.D. or D.O. stating that
it would take the person longer-than-usual to reach the skill
level necessary to pass the 13 or 20 wpm code test. There was no
requirement of an actual documented disability, nor that the
disability would make it *impossible* for the person to pass the test.
Nor did the disability have to be permanent and/or untreatable. The
doctor didn't have to write the letter, just sign it. Nor did the
doctor
need any particular qualifications to make the judgement.

I don't know of anyone who sought a medical waiver who was
denied if they had the required doctor's letter.

Most of all, the waivers did not come about because of ADA.

73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote in message
ups.com...
Bill Sohl wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
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.

The trend is and has been towards ending code.

Ending code or code *testing*?

Ending code testing.

Nothing has changed to alter that general opinion.

Doesn't mean it's a good thing.

IYHO

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.

Fair enough.

Agreed.

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.

IF the code test isn't dropped totally, the president for
waivers in the absence of any treaty requirement will
rule.

How do we know that? If that precedent really existed,
why didn't FCC institute waivers as soon as the
treaty requirement ended? They wouldn't need an NPRM -
they could cite the 1990-2000 procedures and just change
the words for "5 wpm".

Inactivity in response to the treatty change by the FCC
can certainly be chalked up to digestion of the host
of petitions filed after WRC and the ultimate
issuance of NPRM 98-235 which is now pending.

Maybe - but if there really was a precedent, FCC could
cite it, but they haven't.

IF (let's be hypothetical)

Sure!

the FCC did retain code for
Extra, then the American Disabilities Act (ADA) will
surely be raised by someone who need only point
to the use of waivers previously and no court in
this country would rule against such a clain.

IANAL, but was ADA ever successfully cited before
against an FCC decision? An amateur license isn't
a right - only access to the tests for one is.

ADA wasn't needed because the FCC had already
provided a waiver process.

Waivers of any kind are a real quagmire because they
say the waivered test isn't really necessary for the
license. What's to prevent someone for demanding a
waiver of the Extra *written* test?

Anyone can demand anything. On your first statement
regarding waivers being a quagmire...I agree and
that's exactly why the FCC isn't going to retain
any code testing.

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

Probably not.

PLEASE explain on what legal or rational basis the
FCC could argue to avoid a waiver policy if code
was only retained for Extra.

Several:

First off, I don't think ADA has ever been successfully
cited against FCC regulations

So? It hasn't been needed on any FCC basis yet.

Second, an amateur radio license isn't a commercial
thing, so it's not like someone is denied a job or similar.

ADA is not simply about jobs...it is about "access"
on a broad basis.

Third, Extra does not give any more power, modes,
bands or other operating privileges *except* a little
more frequency spectrum.

That's a contradictory statement. You say
there's no additional privileges
and then you note that there is.

There's also the vanity
call selection and the ability to VE other Extras, but
that's about it.

Ditto my last.

Fourth and most important, there's no absolute right
to an amateur radio license. It's a privilege - only
access to the tests is a right.

I think any good ADA attorney would argue otherwise.

As an analogy, consider the national parks. There
are places where access to the park by motor
vehicle is not allowed. Does ADA require that
all parts of all parks be accessible by motor vehicle
because some people can't walk to them?

ADA calls for reasonable accomodation where it can be done.
Your national park analogy doesn't apply.

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

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

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

I personally don't believe the Canadian compromise
would pass ADA requirements.

I do. In fact I think it would solve a lot of problems.

We clearly differ in opinion then.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

wrote in message
oups.com...
Bill Sohl wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
Bill Sohl wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
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?

It really makes no difference because the reality is that about 66%
favor ending code for General.

I say it depends on what the question is. If you're talking about the
General, there's a clear majority to eliminate the code test for that
license. But if you're talking about the Extra, there's a clear
majority to keep the code test for *that* license.

If you're talking about complete code test elimination, which the NPRM
proposes, there's a clear majority *against* that.

Given an absolute majority
opinion ro end code... at least for General, then we can be
sure the FCC isn't going to retain any code at all because to
do so once again means a reinstatement of code medica
waivers.

I disagree!

The medical waivers came about because of the request of a
now-dead King to a president who left office 13 years ago,
ADA had nothing to do with it IIRC.

But the ADA wil surely be a part of it IF FCC retains
any code testing going forward.

How do we know that for sure, Bill?

I am reasonably certain such woud be the case.
That is my prediction, if and only if FCC
retains code testing at any level. Others such
as yourself are free to disagree.

Does anyone think otherwise?

Yes - me.

If medical waivers were a consideration, FCC could have
immediately reinstituted them in July 2003, claiming that
the only reason they didn't exist before was the treaty. But
they didn't.

They could have dropped code immediately too but that
didn't happen either. The wheels of government change turn ever
so slowly.

Agreed!

My point is that it's not a done deal until they actually do it. And if
there were no question, they'd have done it already.

There is, IMHO, no question...just the process which
is, as I've said, just slow government process.

In any event, the NPRM indicates that FCC is strongly predisposed
to just eliminate Element 1 - and make *no* other changes.

And I have seen nothing offered in any comments that
will, IMHO, change that.

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?

Obviously not!

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?

Bottom line again is "who cares?"

Obviously Len does - just look at how he carries on about it.....

Well I surely don't care.

Nor I, really. It's just an academic exercise - FCC doesn't have
to go with majority opinion.

Agreed then.

In the scheme of
things the results as tabulated by etiher Len or Joe are a
solid base for the end of code testing.

For General, yes. For Extra, the opposite is true.

For extra the opposite is just barely a majority.

55% is more than "just barely". Most US presidential elections are a
lot closer
(in the popular vote).

55% is one number, 50.x% is Len's.

..I wouldn't
hang any hopes on that meaning anything to the FCC.

Nor I. But the fact is that the majority opinion does not support
complete
elimination of the Morse Code test.

Fair enough.

But as we both know, FCC is under no mandate to
follow the majority opinion.

Exactly!

So why keep a scorecard at all?

For interesting dialog :-) :-)

The "let's keep it just
for Extra" group isn't even united on what speed it should
be. Most will accept (IMHO) retention of 5wpm for
Extra, but some have called for a return to the days
of yesteryear and would like 13 or 20wpm.

So we compromise on 15 wpm.

ROTFLMAO

Thought you'd enjoy that!

I did indeed.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

wrote in message
ps.com...
Bill Sohl wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "W2DNE"
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Sent: Friday, November 04, 2005 6:40 PM
Subject: Scorecard on WT Docket 05-235

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Iitoi" wrote in message
...

Bill Sohl Wrote:

IF (let's be hypothetical) the FCC did retain code for
Extra, then the American Disabilities Act (ADA) will
surely be raised by someone who need only point
to the use of waivers previously and no court in
this country would rule against such a clain.

The "waivers previously" were only for the 13/20 WPM tests, and
required the applicant to have passed a 5 WPM test. TTBOMK there has
never been any waiver of 5 WPM, thus no precedent in support of such
a
claim.

The ONLY reason waivers were not extended down to 5wpm
in the past was because the FCC believed the USA could not
waive the minimal code test because of the treaty. Now
that there is no treaty requirement, the logic that lead
to waivers of 13/20 wpm can and would be extended to
a 5wpm test IF such test remains. The precident stands
based on the general application of waivers for non-treaty
established code speeds.

True - up to a point.

It can also be argued that the precedent is limited only to
'higher-speed' code tests, and not to code testing in general.
IOW, there's a difference between a waiver of a higher level
of skill vs. a complete waiver of the skill.

Agreed... BUT there is no longer ANY international
treaty requirement for even a basic skill which, I believe,
is exactly why we have an open (almost closed now)
NPRM addressing ending ALL code testing.
It is also why, IMHO, the FCC won't go with any
code test at all for Extra.

As an analogy, there have been cases (not amateur radio)
where a disabled person was given additional time to
complete a test that, for everyone else, had a strict time limit.

That person essentially got a waiver of the time limit but not
of the test itself.

Opponents of the waiver said that the time limit was an
integral part of the test.

Also last I checked there was no precedent for a waiver of 5
word-per-min.

The precident is for waivers of code testing of non-treaty
required code knowledge. It matters not if that was 20, 13
or now 5wpm. Conceptually the precident is there.

But only for higher-speed tests, not for the basic skill itself.

And again, the basic skill was, in the past, an ITU treaty
requirement. It ain't anymore.

In any case, I'd agree that invoking ADA might work --- to require
possibility of test waivers for disabled, but not to disallow testing
outright.

The waivers in the past were only for disabled with a medical
certification statement.

Which took the form of a letter from any M.D. or D.O. stating that
it would take the person longer-than-usual to reach the skill
level necessary to pass the 13 or 20 wpm code test. There was no
requirement of an actual documented disability, nor that the
disability would make it *impossible* for the person to pass the test.
Nor did the disability have to be permanent and/or untreatable. The
doctor didn't have to write the letter, just sign it. Nor did the
doctor
need any particular qualifications to make the judgement.

Agreed..and such was "my" intent regarding medical
certficiation.

I don't know of anyone who sought a medical waiver who was
denied if they had the required doctor's letter.

Nor would they (IMHO) in the future IF any code
test remains.

Most of all, the waivers did not come about because of ADA.

Agreed as to the past.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"Usenet Central" wrote in
link.net:

"Alun L. Palmer" wrote in message
.. .

: Any way you look at it though, more than half the comments are in
: favour of the NPRM and less than a third against,

Not in fact is it ANY WAY (every way) you look at it. If Lenards
tally is accurate, your issue seems almost exactly an even race since
the official Federal Register publication of the NRPM with 50.41% in
favor or dropping Morse and 49.59% in sympathy to retain at least some
Morse examination. Based on your presidents election experience you
should exam for perhaps hanging chads in some preceints in Florida.

BGO


--
"I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord,
make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it."
- Voltaire





It's only an even race if you count those who want to retain a code test
for Extra only as being in the anti camp. I guarantee that the FCC will be
able to think of no reason to retain it only for Extras. In your dreams,
maybe.