wrote in message
oups.com...
an old friend wrote:
wrote:
Bill Sohl wrote:
Well I thnk it's time to stop waiting.
Day 7 and nothing new.

With all due respect, Bill....

Did you really expect that someone would point the way,
so that anticodetest folks could write reply comments
without having to look through all the comments?

No I doubt that Bill thinks the Procoder feel any reagrd to engage in
opne deabte we have hae in the SOP of most of the procoders here

However Bill in addresing the NG does not merely addres the ProCoder

So, answer his question!

OTOH the If the ProCoders have got something new they need to shouting
it off the roof top so the FCC might hear and consider this new point

Why mention it here?

Why not. The comment phase and reply comment phase is over.
Truth is, however, that if there was anything that could have
been described as new, even if it wasn't compelling, odds are we'd
have heard it already via ARRL (QST), Len A., or someone else.

the best New point is so repceprical licenseing issues but that hardly
seems enough to turn the course (it is but a hicup issue ar best)

Logical the R&O should be by the end of the week or at worst the month

How is that "logical"?

FCC has no set deadline to produce the R&O. Given the large number of
comments, reply comments and other filings to consider, it will not be
a quick process. Remember that FCC doesn't just have to read the
comments - they
also have to decide which arguments are most compelling, cite them, and
justify their decision.

Unless you expect a new set of FCC responses to all the pre-existing
morse test arguments, the FCC's job of jusifying their decision is simply
a restatement of the R&O code test responses from 98-143 (IMHO).
Even the reciprocal license argument isn't a big deal to resoond to since
not one examply appears to even exist AND there's no treaty
requirement that calls for any reciprocal licensing in any case.

On top of that is the fact that while the majority of commenters
support
removing the code test for General, the majority of commenters also
support keeping the code test for Extra.

That majority is a very thin one.

So if FCC wants to remove the
code test for Extra, they have to justify ignoring what the majority
wants.

Not so, the FCC is in no way duty bound to view the comments as
a "vote" with a majority vs minority outcome. Why Jim,
even you have made that point on more than one occasion.
Once again, I ask you to look at past FCC statements that
have already addressed the need for ANY code testing.
98-143 R&O retained only a 5 wpm test based solely on
the existing ITU treaty requirement. That treaty requirement
is toast now and with its removal the last legitamate procode
test argument went with it (IMHO).

The R&Os from FCC are carefully worded, and that sort of thing takes
a bunch of time.

R&O for 98-143 took several months. This NPRM is far more
concise in the changes it proposed and shouldn't (logically) take as
long..

However the Govt is not known for its logical behavoir

I don't think you understand "logical", Mark.

Heck, none of us understand government logic :-)

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

wrote in message
oups.com...



Like most hams, your comments confirm you have not the
slightest idea of reality and how the corrupt FCC bureaucracy
actually works. Feel free to continue your fantasy though.



FCC & ARRL - Partners in the Culture of Corruption

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
ink.net...
:
: That majority is a very thin one.
:

A thinner majority was decided your so-called "leader of the free world".

Cheerio,
Barnabus Grumwitch Overbyte


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

Bill Sohl wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
an old friend wrote:
wrote:
Bill Sohl wrote:
Well I thnk it's time to stop waiting.
Day 7 and nothing new.

With all due respect, Bill....

Did you really expect that someone would point the way,
so that anticodetest folks could write reply comments
without having to look through all the comments?

No I doubt that Bill thinks the Procoder feel any reagrd to engage in
opne deabte we have hae in the SOP of most of the procoders here

However Bill in addresing the NG does not merely addres the ProCoder

So, answer his question!

OTOH the If the ProCoders have got something new they need to shouting
it off the roof top so the FCC might hear and consider this new point

Why mention it here?

Why not. The comment phase and reply comment phase is over.
Truth is, however, that if there was anything that could have
been described as new, even if it wasn't compelling, odds are we'd
have heard it already via ARRL (QST), Len A., or someone else.

the best New point is so repceprical licenseing issues but that hardly
seems enough to turn the course (it is but a hicup issue ar best)

Logical the R&O should be by the end of the week or at worst the month

How is that "logical"?

FCC has no set deadline to produce the R&O. Given the large number of
comments, reply comments and other filings to consider, it will not be
a quick process. Remember that FCC doesn't just have to read the
comments - they
also have to decide which arguments are most compelling, cite them, and
justify their decision.

Unless you expect a new set of FCC responses to all the pre-existing
morse test arguments, the FCC's job of jusifying their decision is simply
a restatement of the R&O code test responses from 98-143 (IMHO).

He does I suspect he will be disapointed

Even the reciprocal license argument isn't a big deal to resoond to since
not one examply appears to even exist AND there's no treaty
requirement that calls for any reciprocal licensing in any case.

and if they choose to repsond to it they can say note it and in their
coment and give status subject to future dissusion

On top of that is the fact that while the majority of commenters
support
removing the code test for General, the majority of commenters also
support keeping the code test for Extra.

That majority is a very thin one.

and assumes facts not in evidence

biggest is the aumsume is that ALL comenetors favoring keeping code
testing as it is favor keeping code testing for the extra class if the
general class requirement is dropped

I am sure (based on nature of people) that at least one comentor
favouring code testing for general's would agree that if you are not
going to test for general no point in testing for extra either,
therefore the Majority already thin may not truely exist

So if FCC wants to remove the
code test for Extra, they have to justify ignoring what the majority
wants.

Not so, the FCC is in no way duty bound to view the comments as
a "vote" with a majority vs minority outcome. Why Jim,
even you have made that point on more than one occasion.
Once again, I ask you to look at past FCC statements that
have already addressed the need for ANY code testing.
98-143 R&O retained only a 5 wpm test based solely on
the existing ITU treaty requirement. That treaty requirement
is toast now and with its removal the last legitamate procode
test argument went with it (IMHO).

The R&Os from FCC are carefully worded, and that sort of thing takes
a bunch of time.

R&O for 98-143 took several months. This NPRM is far more
concise in the changes it proposed and shouldn't (logically) take as
long..

However the Govt is not known for its logical behavoir

I don't think you understand "logical", Mark.

Heck, none of us understand government logic :-)

well I think some lawyers do, maybe we should ask Phil Kane

he may well understand better than I

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

Grümwîtch thë Ünflãppåblê wrote:
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
ink.net...
:
: That majority is a very thin one.
:

A thinner majority was decided your so-called "leader of the free world".

quite incorrect and shows the poster alas does not understand the US
constitution

Like Bush or not, he like every president but a couple (Ford, T
Rosevent ) was elected by the Electorial college

the people vote for these slates of electors

a Presdient could in theory be elected with as few as one quater of the
cast votes if those voters were to correct places in the country

Cheerio,
Barnabus Grumwitch Overbyte


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

"an old friend" wrote in message
ups.com...

Grümwîtch thë Ünflãppåblê wrote:
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
ink.net...
:
: That majority is a very thin one.
:

A thinner majority was decided your so-called "leader of the free world".

quite incorrect and shows the poster alas does not
understand the US constitution

Like Bush or not, he like every president but a couple (Ford, T
Rosevent ) was elected by the Electorial college

the people vote for these slates of electors

a Presdient could in theory be elected with as few
as one quater of the cast votes if those voters
were to correct places in the country

Yup, in Bush W's first elction to the presidency
he actually lost the "popular" vote nationwide
by (I think) about 1/2 million votes...BUT, he
won the electoral college vote.

Even Bill Clinton in one of his presidential races did not
recieve a majority of the popular vote...although
he clearly had more votes than either Bush Sr or
the 3rd party candidate.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

an old friend wrote:
wrote:
an old friend wrote:
wrote:
Bill Sohl wrote:

OTOH the If the ProCoders have got something new they need to shouting
it off the roof top so the FCC might hear and consider this new point

Why mention it here?

so more people might comet and bring it to the attention of the FCC

I strongly urge more people to "comet". You, on the other hand, seem to
have taken up the role of meteorite and burned upon entering Earth's
atmosphere.


FCC has no set deadline to produce the R&O. Given the large number of
comments, reply comments and other filings to consider, it will not be
a quick
process. Remember that FCC doesn't just have to read the comments -
they
also have to decide which arguments are most compelling, cite them, and
justify their decision.

no they do not

What color is the sky as seen from your planet, Mark?

Dave K8MN

Bill Sohl wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
an old friend wrote:
wrote:
Bill Sohl wrote:
Well I thnk it's time to stop waiting.
Day 7 and nothing new.

With all due respect, Bill....

Did you really expect that someone would point the way,
so that anticodetest folks could write reply comments
without having to look through all the comments?

No I doubt that Bill thinks the Procoder feel any reagrd to engage in
opne deabte we have hae in the SOP of most of the procoders here

However Bill in addresing the NG does not merely addres the ProCoder

So, answer his question!

OTOH the If the ProCoders have got something new they need to shouting
it off the roof top so the FCC might hear and consider this new point

Why mention it here?

Why not. The comment phase and reply comment phase is over.

FCC doesn't shut down ECFS on a proceeding just because the
deadline has passed.

Truth is, however, that if there was anything that could have
been described as new, even if it wasn't compelling, odds are we'd
have heard it already via ARRL (QST), Len A., or someone else.

I don't think anyone at ARRL is reading all the comments.

Len isn't a reliable source. Despite his claim that he read and
understood
all the comments, he didn't know that someone else was reading all the
comments too, and posting the results online for all to see. Even
though
the URL was on the first page of the comments, he missed it completely.

the best New point is so repceprical licenseing issues but that hardly
seems enough to turn the course (it is but a hicup issue ar best)

Logical the R&O should be by the end of the week or at worst the month

How is that "logical"?

FCC has no set deadline to produce the R&O. Given the large number of
comments, reply comments and other filings to consider, it will not be
a quick process. Remember that FCC doesn't just have to read the
comments - they
also have to decide which arguments are most compelling, cite them, and
justify their decision.

Unless you expect a new set of FCC responses to all the pre-existing
morse test arguments, the FCC's job of jusifying their decision is simply
a restatement of the R&O code test responses from 98-143 (IMHO).

Of course. But that takes time.

Even the reciprocal license argument isn't a big deal to resoond to since
not one examply appears to even exist AND there's no treaty
requirement that calls for any reciprocal licensing in any case.

Doesn't matter - FCC will most probably address that issue in the R&O.

Note that FCC doesn't have to say that a reason is a bad reason, or
false, etc. All they have to do is say the reason is insufficient.

On top of that is the fact that while the majority of commenters
support
removing the code test for General, the majority of commenters also
support keeping the code test for Extra.

That majority is a very thin one.

55% of commenters isn't a thin majority.

So if FCC wants to remove the
code test for Extra, they have to justify ignoring what the majority
wants.

Not so, the FCC is in no way duty bound to view the comments as
a "vote" with a majority vs minority outcome.

Sure they do - they just aren't required to follow the majority
opinion.

Why Jim,
even you have made that point on more than one occasion.
Once again, I ask you to look at past FCC statements that
have already addressed the need for ANY code testing.

I've already addressed that in "The Pool"...

98-143 R&O retained only a 5 wpm test based solely on
the existing ITU treaty requirement. That treaty requirement
is toast now and with its removal the last legitamate procode
test argument went with it (IMHO).

If so, why didn't FCC just dump Element 1 in August 2003? I
am still surprised they didn't.

Or, why did they reject NCI's "sunset clause" idea?

The R&Os from FCC are carefully worded, and that sort of thing takes
a bunch of time.

R&O for 98-143 took several months. This NPRM is far more
concise in the changes it proposed and shouldn't (logically) take as
long..

True. But there are more comments to read.

However the Govt is not known for its logical behavoir

I don't think you understand "logical", Mark.

Heck, none of us understand government logic :-)

One of those oxymorons like "jumbo shrimp" or "tight slacks"...

73 de Jim, N2EY

Grümwîtch thë Ünflãppåblê wrote:

A thinner majority was decided your so-called "leader of the free world".

Cheerio,
Barnabus Grumwitch Overbyte

Barney, our President is merely -our- leader. It is in the vacuum of
an almost leaderless world that you prop him up as the "leader of the
free world." I sure hope your intel guys pass no more bad info our
way. Could strain relations.

wrote in message
ups.com...

Bill Sohl wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
an old friend wrote:
wrote:
Bill Sohl wrote:
(SNIP)
Truth is, however, that if there was anything that could have
been described as new, even if it wasn't compelling, odds are we'd
have heard it already via ARRL (QST), Len A., or someone else.

I don't think anyone at ARRL is reading all the comments.

I suspect that Chris Imlay has a hard copy of every comment
filed which he has already reviewed.

Len isn't a reliable source. Despite his claim that he read and
understood
all the comments, he didn't know that someone else was reading all the
comments too, and posting the results online for all to see. Even
though
the URL was on the first page of the comments, he missed it completely.

Didn't you forget the "IMHO" in regard to your opinion
of Len's analysis.

the best New point is so repceprical licenseing issues but that
hardly
seems enough to turn the course (it is but a hicup issue ar best)

Logical the R&O should be by the end of the week or at worst the month

How is that "logical"?

FCC has no set deadline to produce the R&O. Given the large number of
comments, reply comments and other filings to consider, it will not be
a quick process. Remember that FCC doesn't just have to read the
comments - they
also have to decide which arguments are most compelling, cite them, and
justify their decision.

Unless you expect a new set of FCC responses to all the pre-existing
morse test arguments, the FCC's job of jusifying their decision is simply
a restatement of the R&O code test responses from 98-143 (IMHO).

Of course. But that takes time.

Probably not more than a couple of months anyway.

Even the reciprocal license argument isn't a big deal to resoond to since
not one examply appears to even exist AND there's no treaty
requirement that calls for any reciprocal licensing in any case.

Doesn't matter - FCC will most probably address that issue in the R&O.

Actually it does matter as it defines the importance in the
eyes of the FCC.

Note that FCC doesn't have to say that a reason is a bad reason, or
false, etc. All they have to do is say the reason is insufficient.

Agreed.

On top of that is the fact that while the majority of commenters
support
removing the code test for General, the majority of commenters also
support keeping the code test for Extra.

That majority is a very thin one.

55% of commenters isn't a thin majority.

By your count anyway.

So if FCC wants to remove the
code test for Extra, they have to justify ignoring what the majority
wants.

Not so, the FCC is in no way duty bound to view the comments as
a "vote" with a majority vs minority outcome.

Sure they do - they just aren't required to follow the majority
opinion.

Please point to such recognition of any true majority opinion
regarding comments as previously stated by the FCC in
past amateur proceedings.

Why Jim,
even you have made that point on more than one occasion.
Once again, I ask you to look at past FCC statements that
have already addressed the need for ANY code testing.

I've already addressed that in "The Pool"...

98-143 R&O retained only a 5 wpm test based solely on
the existing ITU treaty requirement. That treaty requirement
is toast now and with its removal the last legitamate procode
test argument went with it (IMHO).

If so, why didn't FCC just dump Element 1 in August 2003? I
am still surprised they didn't.

FCC is just following their own legal process.

Or, why did they reject NCI's "sunset clause" idea?

You'll have to ask the FCC that question.

The R&Os from FCC are carefully worded, and that sort of thing takes
a bunch of time.

R&O for 98-143 took several months. This NPRM is far more
concise in the changes it proposed and shouldn't (logically) take as
long..

True. But there are more comments to read.

Most are one or two sentances. No big deal.

However the Govt is not known for its logical behavoir

I don't think you understand "logical", Mark.

Heck, none of us understand government logic :-)

One of those oxymorons like "jumbo shrimp" or "tight slacks"...

Agreed.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK