wrote in news:1130386378.660926.152330
@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:

From: on Tues, Oct 25 2005 2:30 am

wrote:
From: on Oct 24, 3:39 am
Alun L. Palmer wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote in
wrote:
On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 16:41:58 -0400, Mike Coslo
wrote:
On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 14:23:24 -0400, Mike Coslo
wrote:


Nice MISDIRECTION away from the NPRM. :-)

The thread is about your "scorecard", Len.

No, it is about A score card, specifically on WT Docket 05-235,
done to provide some insight on the Comments made and the
prevailing opinions of OTHERS out there, as much up to date as
possible for anyone else interested in NPRM 05-143.

The first thread was begun by me on 2 August, 2005, intended as
a quick-look compilation of filings that had begun on 20 July by
individuals. The second thread was begun by me on 2 August 2005,
specifically to show both the original Docket opening filings and
those filed after the Notice in the Federal Register. The third
thread (this one) was begun on 17 October due to all the
gabbling and squabbling about charges of "inaccuracy" by all
those who didn't bother to do their own compilation. shrug

To almost the end of 26 October 2005, there have been 3,055
filings on WT Docket 05-235. Has Miccolis READ them? ALL
of them? I have. I have appended two listings of filings
with my Replies to Comments done at the date those Replies
were filed. Miccolis FAILED to note that had been done; ergo,
Miccolis has READ ALL of the filings in WT Docket 05-235.

Brian Burke has filed on WT Docket 05-235, even Dan Jeswald,
Bill Sohl, and a few others. James P. Miccolis has NOT filed
ANYTHING on WT Docket 05-235 as of 7 PM EDT on 26 October 2005.

Asking how the
numbers are derived, what rules are used in the derivation, and who
checks your work are right on-subject.

But NOT necessary. I include Notes with each posting of the
"score card" which explain the categorization. Those are
comprehensive to those who bother to READ things.

Since this is a private compilation, I do my own "checking"
prior to each posting. Those can be verified by ANYONE who
bothers to READ ALL of the filings in WT Docket 05-235.

For example, if someone filed 1 comment and 3 reply comments on the
NPRM, did you count them as 1 or 4 or something else?

The OPINION expressed in EACH Comment or Reply to Comments
is EVIDENT in their CONTENT. That is self-evident (to
those who are not busy with misdirection of asking stupid
little questions designed to annoy the score-keeper).

James P. Miccolis has NOT posted ANYTHING similar to what
I have done...yet wishes to be some kind of "judge" on
what should be and what should not be. Tsk, tsk.



Your mistakes are well documented. Such as the legality of
amateur operation by hams with expired-but-in-the-grace-period
licenses.

THIS thread is about NPRM 05-143 and the filings in WT
Docket 05-235. If there are "mistakes" in the tabulations,
those can be found by ANYONE who bothers to READ the filings.

So far, the ONLY "mistake" was a juxtaposition of two note
numbers in the new form of the second thread begun on the
first of September. That was pointed out by Bill Sohl in
public, I acknowledged that and correct the juxtaposition.

Neither NPRM 05-143 nor WT Docket 05-235 concern themselves
with any "operation by hams with expired-but-in-the-grace-
period." :-)


Gosh, Len, so you *can* call me by my name!

Your name is James P. Miccolis. You haven't filed anything
in the FCC ECFS since 23 August 2004. It is NOT "Jim."


US citizenship is not a requirement for getting an FCC
amateur radio license. Passing the required tests *is* a requirement.

NPRM 05-143 is a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking by the FCC.
Any Report and Order issued as a RESULT of Comments then
becomes LAW in the form of an FCC Regulation of U.S. civil
radio. Do you understand that, or must it be explained in
voluminous detail to you?

A comment to FCC is not a vote. Citizenship is not required to comment.

Did you fail high school Civics class? The First Amendment
of the United States Constitution guarantees CITIZENS the
right to make comments to their government. United States
citizens...NOT citizens of OTHER countries.

Neither is there an age requirement to comment.

Given the childish behavior of some, especially those spiteful
ones attempting to misdirect a thread showing the day-by-day
change in the filings of WT Docket 05-235, perhaps there
should be. Even more so when those spiteful children have
great difficulty in accepting the prevailing opinions in the
"amateur community."

Of course Len has admitted that he has had problems integrating young
people into what he considers 'adult' activities....

There is a minimum age to serve in the United States military.
I have NO difficulty with that. I HAVE served. Has James P.
Miccolis served his country in that country's military? No, he
has not. Miccolis perceives "problems" on such minimum age
limits, yet has NOT served.

The state of California has a minimum age limit on many things,
drivers licenses for one. I have no problem with those. Miccolis
perceives I have "problems" there? I have not.

There are hundreds of local communities which have very definite
AGE LIMITS in their ordinances and codifications of law, all with
definite moral and ethical purposes to those. I have no "problem"
with them. Miccolis perceives "problems" where none exist.

Miccolis wishes to drag up SEVEN-YEAR-OLD Comments on WT Docket
98-143...which are NOT a part of NPRM 05-143. Why? The only
possible reason is his personal spite and the attempt to mis-
direct this thread into the usual Flame War squabbling.


A comment is not a vote. An NPRM is not an election. FCC doesn't have
to act on what the majority of comments want.

Had Miccolis done HIS OWN COMPILATION on the filings of WT Docket
05-235, he would have found that the majority of those making
Comments since Federal Register Notice date of 31 August are NOT
favoring NPRM 05-143. Miccolis should keep that in mind, if and
when the FCC gets around to making their Report and Order. :-)

Note that Miccolis has often referred to FCC 99-412
("Restructuring")
Report and Order as "not following the majority!" :-)


The issue is the accuracy of your 'scorecard'.

I try to issue those daily. As a service to anyone interested in
the progress of the public comment period on NPRM 05-143. I try to
make them as accurate as possible.

James P. Miccolis hasn't issued any tabulations/compilations on the
filings of WT Docket 05-235. One wonders if he has READ them at
all.

The CHARGES of "inaccuracy" are specious, NOT backed up by any
other tabulations/compilations on WT Docket 05-235.


Tsk, tsk. Since this is a private

It's not private at all.

It is a PRIVATE ENDEAVOR. As in "by myself." It is made "public"
as in public view, as a result of posting.

I can do it by private e-mail as easily. That way it would not
(seemingly) offend you so much that you write the following:

You blab it all over a public forum, so it's fair game for comment and
question by others.

Sigh...you still do NOT understand computer-modem communications.
These newsgroups unrestricted by moderators are ALL open and
public to anyone who has access to a provider or to Google.

That's what free speech in a public forum is all about, Len.

You ABUSE "free speech" by general heckling...apparently because
of personal spite at getting opposite opinions to your mighty and
imperious statements made in public.

If you make statements here, others have the right to comment on them
and question their validity.

Hello? You've just gotten a taste of "rights" right up your
I/O port. :-)

Is your 'scorecard' a collection of alleged facts, or is it just your
opinion?

Neither. It is my honest effort to show the day-by-day
compilation of filings on WT Docket 05-235.

Such a compilation/tabulation can be done by ANYONE having
access to the FCC ECFS or to the FCC Reading Room.

Miccolis has NOT done ANY of his own compilation/tabultion
in order to BACK UP HIS CHARGES OF INACCURACY. Tsk, tsk.


The NPRM does not state that comments must be about Morse Code testing
and nothing else.

NPRM 05-143 is solely about morse code testing, elimination of
test element 1 to be specific. Had you bothered to READ ALL of
filings in WT Docket 05-235 you would have seen some filings
which were NOT EVEN ABOUT THE NPRM! :-) Is the FCC going to
consider those in regards to NPRM 05-143? :-)

Should your reply comments be called "indeterminate" because of that?

You will label my comments anydamnthing you want...that's totally
predictable! :-)

I'd not call your spiteful little misdirections in here as
"indeterminate." INDEFATIGUABLE is more like it... :-)


Perhaps your explanation is incomplete?

Perhaps you ought to grow up and accept the FACT that a very
large group in the amateur community does NOT think like you do
about either morse code or morse code testing! [sunnuvagun!]



Yes. You've made serious mistakes in your statements about
Part 97. And you've refused to correct or even acknowledge them.

Tsk, tsk, tsk...then you should cancel my amateur radio license
then, refuse to give me my amateur paycheck? :-)


It's called stating a fact.

Here's a FACT: James P. Miccolis spending a lot of time late at
night (almost 11:30 PM when his latest missive was launched) in
order to HECKLE a no-code-test-advocate. :-)


You're not the only one reading the comments, Len. And your numbers
don't agree with others' results.

PRESENT THOSE "NUMBERS" then. "Prove" the "inaccuracy."

"Put up or shut up," Jimmie (that's a phrase, not a command).

You've spent days on trying to imply "inaccuracy" on my part,
yet you have NO PROOF out in public. You "babble" in here in
an effort to misdirect everyone's attention. [it isn't
working, Jimmie, get a new knuckle-spanking ruler for the
Nun of the Above]

Jimmie has NOT even made ONE filing on WT Docket 05-235.

James P. Miccolis has made one, either... :-)


Jimmie has NOT stated he has READ a single filing on 05-235.

Who is "Jimmie", Len? Can't be me, because I've read several of the
comments. Reply comments too. And the whole NPRM.

Tsk, tsk, tsk, Nun of the Above, try to go with the flow of
newsgrouping. Don't PRETEND you don't know... :-)


I've simply asked questions and stated facts.

Snide, spiteful heckling is more like it... :-)

It's a fact that
you have a proven track record of mistakes here.

Tsk, tsk, tsk...more uncivil attempts at character assassination.
Keep it up...it worked well for the National Socialist Party of
Germany in the 1930s. :-)

If you try real hard, you might even convince others I have
underarm odor!


Is that your methodology here, Len?

All I'm doing is READING ALL the filings in WT Docket 05-235 and
showing - as honestly as I can, as accurately as I can - the
four categories of opinions therein.

Perhaps you're counting on nobody checking your work.

Doesn't matter. ANYONE can "check my work." All they have to
do is go in and READ ALL of the filings, count them up, tabulate
the results.

ANYONE can go in to the FCC ECFS and "check my totals" posted in
here. Just set the date blocks on the ECFS form and the ECFS
will automatically total ALL of those within that date period!

[new technology applied...you should try some sometime...]


Had Jimmie seen other NPRMs and the
resulting R&Os, he would understand that. Obviously, he has NOT.

I don't know what "Jimmie" has read, but I've read plenty of
NPRMs and the resultinf R&Os.

Jimmie Noserve also pretends to be an expert on military life.
Hasn't served a day, though. The Nun of the Above is busy
looking for knuckles to slap with her ruler. ["give a Nun
an inch and she thinks she's a ruler"]

Hello? You are in a NEWSGROUP. You wish to heckle your
perceived enemies...yet you demand all this "civility" of
"proper names" and other bullsnit. :-)


Not just CITZENS, Len - all interested parties. FCC has not rejected
the comments of noncitizens - why chould you?

Okay, James P. Miccolis, you hop on over to some Australian
place and TELL THEM HOW THEIR LAWS SHOULD BE. You think
you will be "considered," mate? :-)

Jimmie-James, you get yourself a copy of the United States
Constitution and try to UNDERSTAND IT. Especially the
First Amendment.

In fact, one doesn't even have to be a human being to comment.

The ARRL hasn't filed anything on WT Docket 05-235 as of
8 PM EDT, 26 October. Some describe the ARRL as "soul less"
and without substance. :-)

Jimmie-James P. Miccolis of PA has NOT FILED ANYTHING on
WT Docket 05-235 (as of 8 PM EDT, 26 October 2005).


If Kenwood files comments, will you count them or reject them?

Kenwood who? :-)



Does that mean no one can question your scorecard? Why?
Is it somehow sacred and not open to any questions or comments?

I've EXPLAINED my categorizations since my first "score card"
posting on 2 August 2005. See the "Notes" for each one.

Jimmie-James, I can't grab your finger and point it FOR YOU
at the Notes. You HAVE to read them.


It's not about me, Len. It's about *your* 'scorecard'.

Tsk, tsk, Jimmie-James. You are busy, busy, busy making it
YOUR teeny little "judgement at Nuremburg." :-)


Who checks Miccolis' "work" on his bi-monthly "license
number" postings? [he won't say from where he cribs his numbers]

Anyone can check my posted numbers very simply by doing the math. I've
stated the source of those numbers here.

If anyone with newsgroup access can access them, WHY do
you post them here AS IF you "derived them?" :-)


The ARRL represents a distinct MINORITY of all USA amateur radio
licensees. A mere 20%.

How is that number derived?

That's been EXPLAINED to you in public several times!

Go to the QST advertising page at the ARRL site, observe
the "Publisher's Sworn Statement" that appears there twice
a year. Compare that to the total number of USA amateur
radio licensees at about the same time.

That's so terribly EASY to do...even for a double-degree.

:-)


How could anyone check your work, Len? You haven't shown it.

Two tabulations have been appended to two Replies to Comments.
Those are in PUBLIC VIEW at the FCC ECFS under WT Docket 05-235.

ANYONE can go to the ECFS and READ ALL the filings and do their
own compilations/tabulations. Really. It should be EASY for
any Amateur Extra with two degrees. :-)

By the way, "filings" refer to each document as listed in the
Search Results for any ECFS listing. That includes some filings
which have nothing at all to do with NPRM 05-143 or even the
amateur radio regulations! [sunnuvagun!] Another one is
completely blank. I've seen it. Do you know at which date it
was filed? You would if you had READ ALL of them.


Are you afraid of having your work checked, Len?

Not at all. Feel free to "check it" by READING ALL filings. :-)


If I make 10 nonidentical comments, will they count as 1 comment or
more than 1?

So...MAKE THEM! :-)

James P. Miccolis has NOT filed anything with the ECFS since
August of last year. ["put your money where your mouth is"]



Leads me to believe you're counting reply comments too.
And not checking for dupes.

Speaking of "dupes," why are you trying to DUPE everyone into
thinking I'm "always in error?" :-)

Are you so ****ed off at certain posters in here you stay up
until nearly midnight to post nastygrams? :-)

Go ahead, READ ALL of the filings in WT Docket 05-235 and do
your own compilations/tabulations. Check it out.

So far, Miccolis has NOT CHECKED MY WORK,

Nobody can. You haven't shown it.

Yes I have. It's IN the ECFS in two different Replies to
Comments. You just haven't seen it yet. :-)

Want to check my numbers out for totals? Easy to do with the
FCC ECFS and proper use of the date blocks. ECFS does the
totals for that period for you. Tsk, tsk, tsk.


Is a comment a requirement? The deadline isn't till next week.

NOBODY "requires" you to do anything, Jimmie-James. :-)

The deadline (official) for WT Docket 05-235 Comments is
31 October 2005. The deadline (official) for Replies to
Comments is 14 November 2005. Both dates are Mondays (in
case you can't do a calendar in your head).

So far, James P. Miccolis has NOT filed anything in WT
Docket 05-235. But, he has been busy, busy, busy baring
his spite in here, asking dumb questions about things which
have already been EXPLAINED to him in each "score card"
posting I've made. :-)


I'm just asking some questions, Len.

Ho, ho, ho...and the moon is made of green cheese... :-)



James Miccolis wasn't IN the FCC in 1998, 1999, and he isn't
IN the FCC in 2005.

Neither are you, Len - ever.

I don't have to be, Jimmie-James...not to exercise my First
Amendment Rights. :-)


I'm just asking some questions, Len.

No, you are "having fun" trying your spiteful little worst to
HECKLE. :-)


I'm just asking some questions, Len.

No, you are "having fun" trying your spiteful little worst to
HECKLE. :-)


You're the one 'snarling'. Len.

Nah. I'm just "answering your questions!" :-)

I'm just asking some questions.

No, you are "having fun" trying your spiteful little worst to
HECKLE. :-)


The test may be gone, but Morse Code use by hams will go on.
For a long time.

ERROR! MISTAKE! The code test is STILL there! :-)

That's about the 5th ERROR you've made in your one heckle-gram.

You are building up a fine "track record for mistakes!" :-)


I'm just asking some questions, Len.

No, you are "having fun" trying your spiteful little worst to
HECKLE. :-)

Besides - what does all this matter to you? You're not going to get a
license anyway, test or no test.

Tsk, tsk, tsk...are you FORBIDDING my getting an amateur radio
license? That's not NICE, Jimmie-James.

I thought you said "all I'm doing is asking questions?"

If so, why do you say such a NOT-nice thing at the end of your
posting?

Have you been taking testosterone supplements and studying the
newsgroup conduct of Dudly the Imposter? :-)

Or are you tied down on the track in the tunnel and seeing a
bright light coming towards you...and suddenly realizing it IS
a locomotive? :-)





Len, I'm not a US citizen. The FCC doesn't ask for comments only from
citizens. If they did I would respect that and not post any, beleive it or
not, but they don't, so I do. They also have no means of checking. Plus I
hold an FCC licence and live in the USA, and last of all, didn't attend a
high school civics class here, ROTFL!

"Alun L. Palmer" wrote in message
.. .
----CLIPPED ABOUT 500 LINES---


Len, I'm not a US citizen. The FCC doesn't ask for comments only from
citizens. If they did I would respect that and not post any, beleive it or
not, but they don't, so I do. They also have no means of checking. Plus I
hold an FCC licence and live in the USA, and last of all, didn't attend a
high school civics class here, ROTFL!

JESUS H CHRIST ON A UNICYCLE --- LEARN TO TRIM BEFORE YOU POST !!!!!

From: "Alun L. Palmer" on Sun, Nov 6 2005 9:25 am



wrote in news:1130386378.660926.152330
From: on Tues, Oct 25 2005 2:30 am
wrote:
From: on Oct 24, 3:39 am
Alun L. Palmer wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote in
wrote:
On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 16:41:58 -0400, Mike Coslo
wrote:
On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 14:23:24 -0400, Mike Coslo
wrote:


Nice MISDIRECTION away from the NPRM. :-)

big snip so as not to offend W2DNE...:-)

Len, I'm not a US citizen. The FCC doesn't ask for comments only from
citizens. If they did I would respect that and not post any, beleive it or
not, but they don't, so I do. They also have no means of checking. Plus I
hold an FCC licence and live in the USA, and last of all, didn't attend a
high school civics class here, ROTFL!

Alun, my posting to my severest critic (Jimmie) did not involve
your residency. However, it might be worth it to point out a
few things about Internet access and basic U.S. law.

While the government of the United States is now heavily
connected to the Internet and, if an agency makes input to
them public via that same Internet, it does NOT mean that
the Constitution of United States has been "changed" or
overthrown...so that "all" can "decide" on U.S. law.

The FCC "permits" non-resident input to the ECFS only because
it has not installed an elaborate system of locking out those
who are foreign residents (by the address blocks required to
enter an electronic comment) or those who are foreign nationals.
Since U.S. citizens living abroad have an easy and convenient
communications avenue through the Internet, it is advantageous
to NOT have such a lock-out sub-program for them.

Mention of a foreign citizen having a "RECIPROCAL" U.S.
amateur radio license does NOT mean those who have it are
somehow "U.S. citizens" elligible for all the rights of the
U.S. Constitution guaranteed to citizens. That is NOT in
the Communications Act of 1934 nor the Telecommunications Act
of 1996 nor the Radio Regulations of the ITU-R. Those two
Acts were created as Legislation by the Congress of the
United States (which itself was created by the U.S.
Constitution).

That everyone with access to the FCC ECFS can SEE each
filing there does not mean the FCC will CONSIDER each one
as representing "the public" (meaning the citizens of the
United States). As is understood, the FCC need only
LEGALLY CONSIDER those filings which were done in the
legally-posted notice in the Federal Register...which did
not happen until 31 August 2005 despite the first non-
government filing on WT Docket 05-235 occuring on 20 July
2005. By observation and count, OVER HALF of the filings
on that Docket (so far, official end of Replies to
Comments is 14 November, Comment period was officially
up on 31 October) were done BEFORE they were legally open
and official! [did Joe Speroni bother with that "detail"?]

Comment of any kind to the FCC is OPEN to anyone because
our mail and communications avenues are quite open to
all. BUT, the FCC is obliged - by law - to consider "the
public" in DETERMINING civil radio regulations' DECISIONS.
What "the public" is to the FCC is a legal nicety handled
better by those who are legal specialists. Phil Kane, an
attorney specializing in communications law and former
regular in here, might comment on that...or might not.

Would the United Kingdom hold U.S. citizens' comments about
THEIR laws in the same regard as a UK citizen? Would they
DECIDE new laws and regulations on the basis of such
foreign input? I don't think so.

WT Docket 05-235 is NOT a "voting booth." There is NO VOTE
on NPRM 05-143. We can communicate with the FCC openly
(as long as they permit that) but, in the end, the DECISIONS
on amateur radio regulations are THEIRS. That I happened to
use percentages in my tally or that Joe Speroni later used
percentages in his tally, is just a convenience is seeing
who was for what. Whatever method the FCC actually uses
to REACH a decision on making a Report and Order is up to
THEM.

Don't get your legal briefs in a bind. California has a
Special Election on Tuesday. Do you consider that legal
residents NOT of California (population somewhere around
33 million) have "equal right" to VOTE - and thus DECIDE -
on several issues in that election? I don't think so.
The state of California doesn't think so.

For further legal questions on the admissability of written
communications to the United States government, please
consult with the self-styled lawmaster in here, James P.
Miccolis. He "has all the answers." Oyez, oyez!

wrote in
oups.com:

From: "Alun L. Palmer" on Sun, Nov 6 2005 9:25 am



wrote in news:1130386378.660926.152330
snip

Alun, my posting to my severest critic (Jimmie) did not involve
your residency. However, it might be worth it to point out a
few things about Internet access and basic U.S. law.

I am a US resident. I have a green card (which is actually pink).


While the government of the United States is now heavily
connected to the Internet and, if an agency makes input to
them public via that same Internet, it does NOT mean that
the Constitution of United States has been "changed" or
overthrown...so that "all" can "decide" on U.S. law.

The FCC "permits" non-resident input to the ECFS only because
it has not installed an elaborate system of locking out those
who are foreign residents (by the address blocks required to
enter an electronic comment) or those who are foreign nationals.
Since U.S. citizens living abroad have an easy and convenient
communications avenue through the Internet, it is advantageous
to NOT have such a lock-out sub-program for them.

Mention of a foreign citizen having a "RECIPROCAL" U.S.
amateur radio license does NOT mean those who have it are
somehow "U.S. citizens" elligible for all the rights of the
U.S. Constitution guaranteed to citizens. That is NOT in
the Communications Act of 1934 nor the Telecommunications Act
of 1996 nor the Radio Regulations of the ITU-R. Those two
Acts were created as Legislation by the Congress of the
United States (which itself was created by the U.S.
Constitution).


This shows how little you know about the current version of part 97.
Reciprocal licences (Form 610-A) are no longer issued. Anyone from a
country with a reciprocal agreement simply operates in the US under their
foreign licence, with an appropriate prefix. Also, anyone except a
representative of a foreign government can obtain a regular US licence by
taking the same tests as anyone else.

That everyone with access to the FCC ECFS can SEE each
filing there does not mean the FCC will CONSIDER each one
as representing "the public" (meaning the citizens of the
United States). As is understood, the FCC need only
LEGALLY CONSIDER those filings which were done in the
legally-posted notice in the Federal Register...which did
not happen until 31 August 2005 despite the first non-
government filing on WT Docket 05-235 occuring on 20 July
2005. By observation and count, OVER HALF of the filings
on that Docket (so far, official end of Replies to
Comments is 14 November, Comment period was officially
up on 31 October) were done BEFORE they were legally open
and official! [did Joe Speroni bother with that "detail"?]

Comment of any kind to the FCC is OPEN to anyone because
our mail and communications avenues are quite open to
all. BUT, the FCC is obliged - by law - to consider "the
public" in DETERMINING civil radio regulations' DECISIONS.
What "the public" is to the FCC is a legal nicety handled
better by those who are legal specialists. Phil Kane, an
attorney specializing in communications law and former
regular in here, might comment on that...or might not.

Would the United Kingdom hold U.S. citizens' comments about
THEIR laws in the same regard as a UK citizen? Would they
DECIDE new laws and regulations on the basis of such
foreign input? I don't think so.

If someone entered a comment using their UK call it would likely not even
cross the minds of the Ofcom staff whether they were a British citizen,
which is the mirror image of the situation here.


WT Docket 05-235 is NOT a "voting booth." There is NO VOTE
on NPRM 05-143. We can communicate with the FCC openly
(as long as they permit that) but, in the end, the DECISIONS
on amateur radio regulations are THEIRS. That I happened to
use percentages in my tally or that Joe Speroni later used
percentages in his tally, is just a convenience is seeing
who was for what. Whatever method the FCC actually uses
to REACH a decision on making a Report and Order is up to
THEM.

Don't get your legal briefs in a bind. California has a
Special Election on Tuesday. Do you consider that legal
residents NOT of California (population somewhere around
33 million) have "equal right" to VOTE - and thus DECIDE -
on several issues in that election? I don't think so.
The state of California doesn't think so.

For further legal questions on the admissability of written
communications to the United States government, please
consult with the self-styled lawmaster in here, James P.
Miccolis. He "has all the answers." Oyez, oyez!





The point is not whether comments by aliens have to be considered by the
FCC as a matter of law. Doubtless you are right in pointing out that they
don't. However, my impression is that the FCC neither knows nor cares about
the citizenship of those who post comments. If you think they should, and
there is certainly a case for that, then you should tell them, instead of
skewing your interpretation of the comments.

It would be interesting to group the comments as follows:-

1) US citizens who hold a ham licence and reside in the US
2) US citizens who aren't hams and reside in the US
3) Aliens who have an FCC ham licence and reside in the US
3) US citizens who are hams but live outside the US
4) Aliens who have an FCC ham licence and live overseas
5) None of the above

However, the FCC has no capability to divide up the responses except by
whether or not they have an FCC licence, which arguably they shouldn't even
do, as responses from non-hams like you ought to be considered. I suspect
most comments fall in group (1), but these are not the only ones that will
be considered.

From: "Alun L. Palmer" on Mon 7 Nov 2005 04:03

wrote in
From: "Alun L. Palmer" on Sun, Nov 6 2005 9:25 am
wrote in news:1130386378.660926.152330


Alun, my posting to my severest critic (Jimmie) did not involve
your residency. However, it might be worth it to point out a
few things about Internet access and basic U.S. law.

I am a US resident. I have a green card (which is actually pink).

So, you are offended that I mentioned "foreigners"?

I didn't call you out by name.

This newsgroup goes everywhere the Internet goes. The Internet
is worldwide now.

As a United States CITIZEN I'm concerned about United States
law as it applies to United States citizens. Last I looked,
United States law was NOT set by foreign citizens.

The point is not whether comments by aliens have to be considered by the
FCC as a matter of law. Doubtless you are right in pointing out that they
don't.

The FCC regulates all civil radio in the United States. That
regulatory power is set by two Acts of Congress (laws). Congress
itself was established by the Constitution of the United States.

Last I looked, NO foreign government had any power to change
United States law.

However, my impression is that the FCC neither knows nor cares about
the citizenship of those who post comments. If you think they should, and
there is certainly a case for that, then you should tell them, instead of
skewing your interpretation of the comments.

It is my contention that the FCC Staff and Commissioners know
rather more than the basics of United States law and to which
country they owe allegiance to...on the job and in their heart.

There is no need for me to tell the FCC that they work for
the United States. They are well aware of that and no
further comment is necessary.

So, I've "skewed" my "interpretation" by "mis-categorization" of
2 out of 3703 filings? That is some heinous crime? I've
labeled them on *MY* tally as "indeterminate" and thus not
affecting *MY* percentages. Both of them were FOR the NPRM.
We can't see how Joe Speroni counted those.

Did I "skew" my "interpretation" of a west coast English
teacher's Comment AGAINST the NPRM even though she said up
front that she has no license and is not desiring to get
one. Joe Speroni counts her as "pro-CW."

I said publicly that I'm NOT posting this "score card" publicly
any more. Too many are terribly touchy (a few totally outraged)
about it and it offends them, poor dears.


However, the FCC has no capability to divide up the responses except by
whether or not they have an FCC licence, which arguably they shouldn't even
do, as responses from non-hams like you ought to be considered.

No?!? I've been TOLD (on 25 Jan 99 in WT Docket 98-143) by an
Amateur Extra that I MUST NOT EVER be allowed to comment on ANY
amateur radio regulation! [search for "Robeson" on that date]

I have been TOLD by non-military-service non-veterans what the
military IS and that I am "wrong" in what I said about that.

I have been TOLD by those who got their degrees long ago that
human laws somehow override physical laws, therefore amateur
radio is "different" than every other radio service.

Brian Shoemaker, on a 31 October 2005 filing said outright
in his Comment that "the only voice that should be heard on the
current issue of rule changes to the HF bands are the users
of the bands."

Shoemaker is PRO-code, therefore, by the Rules of Engagement in
THIS newsgroup (where pro-code rules) his territorial imperative
is "correct!" Is it?

Joe Speroni's "analysis" on his website is "NOT skewed" according
to the local newsgroup Judge of what is "right" and "wrong."

Anyone NOT for morse code is "skewed" and "mistaken" and just
plain "wrong" in here. They have TOLD us. shrug

Oh, wow, all those self-righteous TELLING ME WHAT TO DO! :-)

wrote in
oups.com:

From: "Alun L. Palmer" on Mon 7 Nov 2005 04:03

wrote in
From: "Alun L. Palmer" on Sun, Nov 6 2005 9:25
am
wrote in news:1130386378.660926.152330


Alun, my posting to my severest critic (Jimmie) did not involve
your residency. However, it might be worth it to point out a few
things about Internet access and basic U.S. law.

I am a US resident. I have a green card (which is actually pink).

So, you are offended that I mentioned "foreigners"?

I didn't call you out by name.

I'm not offended. I just don't beleive that the FCC, or even Ofcom for that
matter, give a hoot about the citizenship of people that post comments.


This newsgroup goes everywhere the Internet goes. The Internet
is worldwide now.

As a United States CITIZEN I'm concerned about United States
law as it applies to United States citizens. Last I looked,
United States law was NOT set by foreign citizens.


It's set by Congress and interpreted by the courts. The former have to be
citizens, as do those who elect them. I doubt if judges do, though. Lawyers
certainly don't. It also applies to everyone in the US and has affects on
people even outside the US, like Kenwood and Yaesu for example. The phrase
for all these people is 'interested parties' and that's who the FCC is
looking for comments from, even non-hams!

The point is not whether comments by aliens have to be considered by
the FCC as a matter of law. Doubtless you are right in pointing out
that they don't.

The FCC regulates all civil radio in the United States. That
regulatory power is set by two Acts of Congress (laws). Congress
itself was established by the Constitution of the United States.

Last I looked, NO foreign government had any power to change
United States law.


And your point is what, exactly?

However, my impression is that the FCC neither knows nor cares about
the citizenship of those who post comments. If you think they should,
and there is certainly a case for that, then you should tell them,
instead of skewing your interpretation of the comments.

It is my contention that the FCC Staff and Commissioners know
rather more than the basics of United States law and to which
country they owe allegiance to...on the job and in their heart.

There is no need for me to tell the FCC that they work for
the United States. They are well aware of that and no
further comment is necessary.

So, I've "skewed" my "interpretation" by "mis-categorization" of
2 out of 3703 filings? That is some heinous crime? I've
labeled them on *MY* tally as "indeterminate" and thus not
affecting *MY* percentages. Both of them were FOR the NPRM.
We can't see how Joe Speroni counted those.

Did I "skew" my "interpretation" of a west coast English
teacher's Comment AGAINST the NPRM even though she said up
front that she has no license and is not desiring to get
one. Joe Speroni counts her as "pro-CW."

I said publicly that I'm NOT posting this "score card" publicly
any more. Too many are terribly touchy (a few totally outraged)
about it and it offends them, poor dears.


However, the FCC has no capability to divide up the responses except by
whether or not they have an FCC licence, which arguably they shouldn't
even do, as responses from non-hams like you ought to be considered.

No?!? I've been TOLD (on 25 Jan 99 in WT Docket 98-143) by an
Amateur Extra that I MUST NOT EVER be allowed to comment on ANY
amateur radio regulation! [search for "Robeson" on that date]

I have been TOLD by non-military-service non-veterans what the
military IS and that I am "wrong" in what I said about that.

I have been TOLD by those who got their degrees long ago that
human laws somehow override physical laws, therefore amateur
radio is "different" than every other radio service.

Brian Shoemaker, on a 31 October 2005 filing said outright
in his Comment that "the only voice that should be heard on the
current issue of rule changes to the HF bands are the users
of the bands."

Shoemaker is PRO-code, therefore, by the Rules of Engagement in
THIS newsgroup (where pro-code rules) his territorial imperative
is "correct!" Is it?

Joe Speroni's "analysis" on his website is "NOT skewed" according
to the local newsgroup Judge of what is "right" and "wrong."

Anyone NOT for morse code is "skewed" and "mistaken" and just
plain "wrong" in here. They have TOLD us. shrug

Oh, wow, all those self-righteous TELLING ME WHAT TO DO! :-)

wrote:
From: "Alun L. Palmer" on Sun, Nov 6 2005 9:25 am
While the government of the United States is now heavily
connected to the Internet and, if an agency makes input to
them public via that same Internet, it does NOT mean that
the Constitution of United States has been "changed" or
overthrown...so that "all" can "decide" on U.S. law.

Comments aren't votes. Filings on ECFS do not decide
FCC regulations.

The FCC "permits" non-resident input to the ECFS only because
it has not installed an elaborate system of locking out those
who are foreign residents (by the address blocks required to
enter an electronic comment) or those who are foreign nationals.
Since U.S. citizens living abroad have an easy and convenient
communications avenue through the Internet, it is advantageous
to NOT have such a lock-out sub-program for them.

FCC seeks the comments of all interested parties.

Citizenship is not a requirement.
Residency is not a requirement.
Licensure is not a requirement.

Alun's comments are as welcome to FCC as those of
any citizen.

In fact one of the most-cited-for-support comments to the Restructuring
R&O were
those of Kenwood - a Japan-based manufacturer of radio equipment. So
FCC
*does* consider all comments regardless of who makes them.

Mention of a foreign citizen having a "RECIPROCAL" U.S.
amateur radio license does NOT mean those who have it are
somehow "U.S. citizens" elligible for all the rights of the
U.S. Constitution guaranteed to citizens.

Alun doesn't have a reciprocal license. He has an FCC-issued
US amateur radio license. He passed all the tests required
for that license at the time it was issued - no freebies or byes
because of his UK license.

That is NOT in
the Communications Act of 1934 nor the Telecommunications Act
of 1996 nor the Radio Regulations of the ITU-R. Those two
Acts were created as Legislation by the Congress of the
United States (which itself was created by the U.S.
Constitution).

Yet FCC seeks comments from all interested parties, even those who
are not allowed to vote.

That everyone with access to the FCC ECFS can SEE each
filing there does not mean the FCC will CONSIDER each one
as representing "the public" (meaning the citizens of the
United States).

And?

As is understood, the FCC need only
LEGALLY CONSIDER those filings which were done in the
legally-posted notice in the Federal Register...which did
not happen until 31 August 2005 despite the first non-
government filing on WT Docket 05-235 occuring on 20 July
2005. By observation and count, OVER HALF of the filings
on that Docket (so far, official end of Replies to
Comments is 14 November, Comment period was officially
up on 31 October) were done BEFORE they were legally open
and official!

Different subject entirely.

Do you *really* think FCC will disregard all comments filed
before August 31 because they were early?

Comment of any kind to the FCC is OPEN to anyone because
our mail and communications avenues are quite open to
all.

FCC could easily put something on ECFS saying "noncitizens should not
comment" or "US citizens only". Other govt. websites do similar stuff
when citizenship is an issue.

BUT, the FCC is obliged - by law - to consider "the
public" in DETERMINING civil radio regulations' DECISIONS.

That "public" includes noncitizens.

What "the public" is to the FCC is a legal nicety handled
better by those who are legal specialists.

You seem to think that "the public" doesn't include Alun
even though he's lived in the USA for years and holds a
valid FCC amateur radio license.

Phil Kane, an
attorney specializing in communications law and former
regular in here, might comment on that...or might not.

Anyone can comment.

Would the United Kingdom hold U.S. citizens' comments about
THEIR laws in the same regard as a UK citizen? Would they
DECIDE new laws and regulations on the basis of such
foreign input? I don't think so.

By excluding the comments of noncitizens, you're saying you
have no regard for their opinions.

WT Docket 05-235 is NOT a "voting booth."

That's right. So the citizenship stuff doesn't apply.

There is NO VOTE
on NPRM 05-143. We can communicate with the FCC openly
(as long as they permit that) but, in the end, the DECISIONS
on amateur radio regulations are THEIRS.

Which isn't "democracy".

That I happened to
use percentages in my tally or that Joe Speroni later used
percentages in his tally, is just a convenience is seeing
who was for what. Whatever method the FCC actually uses
to REACH a decision on making a Report and Order is up to
THEM.

So why did you bother to do a scorecard at all, Len?

I think you expected a different outcome and are now
chagrined that your opinions aren't shared as much as
you expected.

Don't get your legal briefs in a bind. California has a
Special Election on Tuesday.

What's so special about it?

Do you consider that legal
residents NOT of California (population somewhere around
33 million) have "equal right" to VOTE - and thus DECIDE -
on several issues in that election? I don't think so.
The state of California doesn't think so.

ECFS isn't an election, Len.

And the fact is that nonresidents have a lot of control over what
happens to California laws. Federal law can preempt state law
even if the residents of a state are against the federal law.

Regardless of ECFS, FCC will do whatever they do. Most
indications are that they will just delete Element 1 and make
no other changes to Part 97 at this time, regardless of
'consensus' or 'majority' or 'scorecards'.

If that happens, the only way for noncodetested Technicians
to get HF privileges will be for them to upgrade to General or Extra.

From: on Mon, Nov 7 2005 5:59 pm


wrote:


Considering how long you've held onto your Johnson, I'd
try not to imagine the state of yours...

My E. F. Johnson Viking Messenger still meets manufacturer's
specifications. My johnson still works fine.

Next question...


No wonder you aren't attached...

"Attached"? In what way?

I don't have a conjoined twin, if that's what you mean.

You are NOT married? Are NOT a parent?

Considering all the talk about your "classic johnson" that's
surprising!



All existing amateurs could be affected.

By your "classic johnson?" Tsk, tsk!



What's "not nice" about stating the facts, Len? Your
disdain of the ARS is not a secret.

I'm not in favor of the Amateur Radiotelegraphy Society.

I'm not in favor of CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS in the amateur
radio service.

To NOT love an amateur morseman is to "hate ALL amateur
radio licensees?" I think not.




NPRM 05-143 is solely about the MORSE CODE TEST, Jimmie.

Actually not. It's also an R&O, and has lots of policy statements from
FCC.

BAD MISTAKE, Jimmie. Go stand in the corner.

"NPRM" is an acronym for Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. It is
just a notice.

"R&O" is a familiar term for Report and Order. A Report and
Order MAKES a regulation.

An NPRM and R&O are NOT the "same."



So you had a shorty connected to your compact Johnson. Quite
appropriate....

Tsk. You are overly concerned with "johnsons," Jimmie.

Is your middle name in "James P. Miccolis" standing for PETER?



What *is* your problem, Len?

Maybe because I don't have a "classic johnson?"



You're misdirecting away from the point about cb.

This thread was originally about WT Docket 05-235. That Docket
has NO relation to Citizens Band Radio Service.



You don't affect me much at all, Len.

...and you don't post a lot in this newsgroup...




I appreciate all sorts of classics.

Tsk, you and Davie "appreciate" those "classic johnsons" too much...




You can keep whatever you want, Len. But I find it odd that you
would hold onto your tube-filled Johnson for so long. After all,
you're always lecturing us about "change" and "new technology"
and all that sort of rot.

"Rot?"

How is your 1990s "original design" "tube-filled" "state of the
art" ham rig doing? Any more "neighbors" come over to gush over
your expertise in making it?

Did they ever gush over your classic johnson?




Many items are routinely referred to by the manufacturer's name.
Hams do it all the time when describing their rigs. For example,
just considering radio sets, I've owned seven Heathkits, two RMEs,
three Nationals, two Hallicrafters, one Gonset, seven Southgates
and yes, at least four different Johnsons.

Could you ever get any of them to work?



Why? You've obviously got the most experience dealing with
one of the smallest Johnsons ever produced.

Dave and I are more interested in the bigger Johnsons, such as
the Valiant (I had one) and the Viking 2 (I had two of those, plus
the 122 VFO).

Is it hard to beat a classic johnson?


Jimmie, go to your remaining classic johnson and turn it on.

See if it turns you on.

wrote:
From: on Mon, Nov 7 2005 5:59 pm

wrote:

No wonder you aren't attached...

"Attached"? In what way?

I don't have a conjoined twin, if that's what you mean.

You are NOT married? Are NOT a parent?

Why do you want to know, Len?

What does it matter?

You're misdirecting away from the point about cb.

This thread was originally about WT Docket 05-235. That Docket
has NO relation to Citizens Band Radio Service.

Sure it does - you're just in denial.

If a rules change makes amateur radio more like cb, there's
a definite connection. I think you'd like it if amateur radio
became just like cb radio.

I appreciate all sorts of classics.

Tsk, you and Davie "appreciate" those "classic johnsons" too much...

"Johnsons" Len.

Not "johnsons".

You seem obsessed by the latter, both your own and other people's. Why?

You can keep whatever you want, Len. But I find it odd that you
would hold onto your tube-filled Johnson for so long. After all,
you're always lecturing us about "change" and "new technology"
and all that sort of rot.

"Rot?"

Yes. As if newer is always better and older is worthless. You seem
to believe what Orwell wrote in "1984": "Ending is better than
mending".

How is your 1990s "original design" "tube-filled" "state of the
art" ham rig doing?

Whoever said it was "state of the art", Len? Certainly not me.

In any event, I used the Southgate Type 7 in the CW part of the
ARRL November Sweepstakes this past weekend. Made 443
QSOs in 77 sections. Only missed North Dakota, Alaska and the
Pacific sections. Worked K0HB and W4NTI, too.

Many items are routinely referred to by the manufacturer's name.
Hams do it all the time when describing their rigs. For example,
just considering radio sets, I've owned seven Heathkits, two RMEs,
three Nationals, two Hallicrafters, one Gonset, seven Southgates
and yes, at least four different Johnsons.

Could you ever get any of them to work?

Yes, Len - all of them that weren't hangar queens - parts units. If you
want to know
how many that is, it comes to:

Heathkit:
Working: DX-20/VF-1, HW-101 (2 of them, with HP-23 and HP-13 supplies),

AR-2/QF-1, HW-2036,
Parts units: HW-101, DX-100

RME: 4350A and 45, both working

National:
Working: NC-173, NC-200
Parts units: NC-173

Hallicrafters: SX-99 and SX-101, both working

Gonset: Super 6, working

Southgate: Types 1 through 7, all working

Johnson:

Working: Adventurer, Valiant, Viking 2/122VFO
Parts unit: Viking 2

Why? You've obviously got the most experience dealing with
one of the smallest Johnsons ever produced.

Dave and I are more interested in the bigger Johnsons, such as
the Valiant (I had one) and the Viking 2 (I had two of those, plus
the 122 VFO).

Except for the Southgates, one of the HW-101s, and the HW-2036,
I sold all of the above equipment - at a profit.

Sunuvagun!

From: on Mon, Nov 7 2005 5:59 pm


wrote:


Considering how long you've held onto your Johnson, I'd
try not to imagine the state of yours...

My E. F. Johnson Viking Messenger still meets manufacturer's
specifications. My johnson still works fine.

Next question...


No wonder you aren't attached...

"Attached"? In what way?

I don't have a conjoined twin, if that's what you mean.

You are NOT married? Are NOT a parent?

Considering all the talk about your "classic johnson" that's
surprising!



All existing amateurs could be affected.

By your "classic johnson?" Tsk, tsk!



What's "not nice" about stating the facts, Len? Your
disdain of the ARS is not a secret.

I'm not in favor of the Amateur Radiotelegraphy Society.

I'm not in favor of CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS in the amateur
radio service.

To NOT love an amateur morseman is to "hate ALL amateur
radio licensees?" I think not.




NPRM 05-143 is solely about the MORSE CODE TEST, Jimmie.

Actually not. It's also an R&O, and has lots of policy statements from
FCC.

BAD MISTAKE, Jimmie. Go stand in the corner.

"NPRM" is an acronym for Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. It is
just a notice.

"R&O" is a familiar term for Report and Order. A Report and
Order MAKES a regulation.

An NPRM and R&O are NOT the "same."



So you had a shorty connected to your compact Johnson. Quite
appropriate....

Tsk. You are overly concerned with "johnsons," Jimmie.

Is your middle name in "James P. Miccolis" standing for PETER?



What *is* your problem, Len?

Maybe because I don't have a "classic johnson?"



You're misdirecting away from the point about cb.

This thread was originally about WT Docket 05-235. That Docket
has NO relation to Citizens Band Radio Service.



You don't affect me much at all, Len.

...and you don't post a lot in this newsgroup...




I appreciate all sorts of classics.

Tsk, you and Davie "appreciate" those "classic johnsons" too much...




You can keep whatever you want, Len. But I find it odd that you
would hold onto your tube-filled Johnson for so long. After all,
you're always lecturing us about "change" and "new technology"
and all that sort of rot.

"Rot?"

How is your 1990s "original design" "tube-filled" "state of the
art" ham rig doing? Any more "neighbors" come over to gush over
your expertise in making it?

Did they ever gush over your classic johnson?




Many items are routinely referred to by the manufacturer's name.
Hams do it all the time when describing their rigs. For example,
just considering radio sets, I've owned seven Heathkits, two RMEs,
three Nationals, two Hallicrafters, one Gonset, seven Southgates
and yes, at least four different Johnsons.

Could you ever get any of them to work?



Why? You've obviously got the most experience dealing with
one of the smallest Johnsons ever produced.

Dave and I are more interested in the bigger Johnsons, such as
the Valiant (I had one) and the Viking 2 (I had two of those, plus
the 122 VFO).

Is it hard to beat a classic johnson?


Jimmie, go to your remaining classic johnson and turn it on.

See if it turns you on.