|
05-235 - Any new procode test arguments?
Forget all the "my survey of comments analysis"
is more accurate than yours... Consider the following question/challenge: In all of the procode test arguments and comments has even one NEW reason to retain code testiing been offered? Forget even if such an argument is valid or compelling in any way...I'm looking for any argument not previously raised and dismissed by or in past FCC commentary (NPRMs, R&Os, etc.) My short answer (and I'll be the first to say I haven't read all comments) is that there are no new arguments raised... because if there had been we'd have seen it or them by now. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
05-235 - Any new procode test arguments?
Bill Sohl wrote: Forget all the "my survey of comments analysis" is more accurate than yours... Consider the following question/challenge: In all of the procode test arguments and comments has even one NEW reason to retain code testiing been offered? I Havenot seen one But then I make no claim to have read em all (my tolerance for crap ran out too fast) Forget even if such an argument is valid or compelling in any way...I'm looking for any argument not previously raised and dismissed by or in past FCC commentary (NPRMs, R&Os, etc.) Indeed if there was one I suspect it would delay the R&O no matter how of the wall it was My short answer (and I'll be the first to say I haven't read all comments) is that there are no new arguments raised... because if there had been we'd have seen it or them by now. BTW I assmue NCI filed coments Did Carl File under is call (looking for a keyword that will not make me sort through too much else) Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
Day 1 05-235 - Any new procode test arguments?
"an_old_friend" wrote in message oups.com... Bill Sohl wrote: Forget all the "my survey of comments analysis" is more accurate than yours... Consider the following question/challenge: In all of the procode test arguments and comments has even one NEW reason to retain code testiing been offered? I Have not seen one But then I make no claim to have read em all (my tolerance for crap ran out too fast) Forget even if such an argument is valid or compelling in any way...I'm looking for any argument not previously raised and dismissed by or in past FCC commentary (NPRMs, R&Os, etc.) Indeed if there was one I suspect it would delay the R&O no matter how of the wall it was My short answer (and I'll be the first to say I haven't read all comments) is that there are no new arguments raised... because if there had been we'd have seen it or them by now. Just about 24 hours since I posted my challeneg and nothing new has been offered up. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
Day 1 05-235 - Any new procode test arguments?
On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 13:05:19 GMT, "Bill Sohl"
wrote: "an_old_friend" wrote in message roups.com... Bill Sohl wrote: Forget all the "my survey of comments analysis" is more accurate than yours... Consider the following question/challenge: In all of the procode test arguments and comments has even one NEW reason to retain code testiing been offered? I Have not seen one But then I make no claim to have read em all (my tolerance for crap ran out too fast) Forget even if such an argument is valid or compelling in any way...I'm looking for any argument not previously raised and dismissed by or in past FCC commentary (NPRMs, R&Os, etc.) Indeed if there was one I suspect it would delay the R&O no matter how of the wall it was My short answer (and I'll be the first to say I haven't read all comments) is that there are no new arguments raised... because if there had been we'd have seen it or them by now. Just about 24 hours since I posted my challeneg and nothing new has been offered up. Please Bll don't hold your breth waiting waiting I like you Cheers, Bill K2UNK _________________________________________ Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server More than 140,000 groups Unlimited download http://www.usenetzone.com to open account |
05-235 - Any new procode test arguments?
Bill Sohl wrote:
In all of the procode test arguments and comments has even one NEW reason to retain code testiing been offered? Yes. Forget even if such an argument is valid or compelling in any way...I'm looking for any argument not previously raised and dismissed by or in past FCC commentary (NPRMs, R&Os, etc.) Why? Most of the "old" reasons are still valid, IMHO. My short answer (and I'll be the first to say I haven't read all comments) is that there are no new arguments raised... because if there had been we'd have seen it or them by now. Here's one: While several countries have eliminated code testing (23 the last time I looked, but you probably have more recent information, Bill), there are still plenty who have not. Japan, long the darling of the nocodetest folks, still has code testing for some of its license levels. Many countries have reciprocal licensing agreements with the USA, so that American amateurs traveling abroad can get licenses for countries they visit, Many of these countries do not extend full-privilege license privileges to foreign hams who are not code tested. If there is no code test in the USA, US amateurs won't be able to get licenses in those countries unless they take a code test there. The "Canadian compromise" gets around that problem neatly. -- Now a challenge: In all of the anticode test arguments and comments has even one NEW reason to eliminate code testiing been offered? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
05-235 - Any new procode test arguments?
From: on Tues, Nov 8 2005 3:59 pm
In all of the anticode test arguments and comments has even one NEW reason to eliminate code testiing been offered? Yes. |
05-235 - Any new procode test arguments?
wrote in message oups.com... Bill Sohl wrote: In all of the procode test arguments and comments has even one NEW reason to retain code testiing been offered? Yes. Forget even if such an argument is valid or compelling in any way...I'm looking for any argument not previously raised and dismissed by or in past FCC commentary (NPRMs, R&Os, etc.) Why? Most of the "old" reasons are still valid, IMHO. Yet we already know ALL of the old reasons have been discounted by the FCC. My short answer (and I'll be the first to say I haven't read all comments) is that there are no new arguments raised... because if there had been we'd have seen it or them by now. Here's one: While several countries have eliminated code testing (23 the last time I looked, but you probably have more recent information, Bill), there are still plenty who have not. Japan, long the darling of the nocodetest folks, still has code testing for some of its license levels. Many countries have reciprocal licensing agreements with the USA, so that American amateurs traveling abroad can get licenses for countries they visit, Many of these countries do not extend full-privilege license privileges to foreign hams who are not code tested. If there is no code test in the USA, US amateurs won't be able to get licenses in those countries unless they take a code test there. So you say, but offer not one example of a country which now does not offer reciprocal licensing to any of the countries that have already dropped code. Cheers, Bill K2UNK The "Canadian compromise" gets around that problem neatly. Not as I see it. Now a challenge: In all of the anticode test arguments and comments has even one NEW reason to eliminate code testiing been offered? No new arguments against retention of code are needed. The FCC has already accepted them. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
Day 1 05-235 - Any new procode test argument markie will sue!s?
wrote in message ... Please Bll don't hold your breth waiting waiting I like you _________________________________________ Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server More than 140,000 groups Unlimited download http://www.usenetzone.com to open account Meaning you won't take this one to court markie?? |
Day 2 - 05-235 - Any new procode test arguments?
Some 48 hours has elapsed and only one new argument
was raised and that has no actual example(s) of any country no longer granting reciprocal licenses to amy of the 20+ countries that have already ended all code testing. Cheers, Bill K2UNK "Bill Sohl" wrote in message ink.net... wrote in message oups.com... Bill Sohl wrote: In all of the procode test arguments and comments has even one NEW reason to retain code testiing been offered? Yes. Forget even if such an argument is valid or compelling in any way...I'm looking for any argument not previously raised and dismissed by or in past FCC commentary (NPRMs, R&Os, etc.) Why? Most of the "old" reasons are still valid, IMHO. Yet we already know ALL of the old reasons have been discounted by the FCC. My short answer (and I'll be the first to say I haven't read all comments) is that there are no new arguments raised... because if there had been we'd have seen it or them by now. Here's one: While several countries have eliminated code testing (23 the last time I looked, but you probably have more recent information, Bill), there are still plenty who have not. Japan, long the darling of the nocodetest folks, still has code testing for some of its license levels. Many countries have reciprocal licensing agreements with the USA, so that American amateurs traveling abroad can get licenses for countries they visit, Many of these countries do not extend full-privilege license privileges to foreign hams who are not code tested. If there is no code test in the USA, US amateurs won't be able to get licenses in those countries unless they take a code test there. So you say, but offer not one example of a country which now does not offer reciprocal licensing to any of the countries that have already dropped code. Cheers, Bill K2UNK The "Canadian compromise" gets around that problem neatly. Not as I see it. Now a challenge: In all of the anticode test arguments and comments has even one NEW reason to eliminate code testiing been offered? No new arguments against retention of code are needed. The FCC has already accepted them. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
Day 2 - 05-235 - Any new procode test arguments?
Bill Sohl wrote: Some 48 hours has elapsed and only one new argument was raised and that has no actual example(s) of any country no longer granting reciprocal licenses to amy of the 20+ countries that have already ended all code testing. Cheers, Bill K2UNK any thought on how you will keep this up? just cruious my own siggestion is 7 days then weekly til the R&O comes out |
Day 2 - 05-235 - Any new procode test arguments?
"an old friend" wrote in message oups.com... Bill Sohl wrote: Some 48 hours has elapsed and only one new argument was raised and that has no actual example(s) of any country no longer granting reciprocal licenses to amy of the 20+ countries that have already ended all code testing. Cheers, Bill K2UNK any thought on how you will keep this up? just cruious my own siggestion is 7 days then weekly til the R&O comes out Since the comment phase is now officially closed I was only asking if anyone knew of any new arguments filed in support of code testing. Jim N2EY gave us one...but, now that I think about it, he never actually said that he or anyone else actually submitted that argument as actual comments to the NPRM. My opinion, we ain't gonna see anything new beyond Jim's rather weak addition...which may not even by an actual submission. I'll give the folks a week or so per your suggestion "old friend". Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
Day 4 - 05-235 - Any new procode test arguments?
Still nothing of any consequence.
Cheers, Bill K2UNK "Bill Sohl" wrote in message ink.net... "an old friend" wrote in message oups.com... Bill Sohl wrote: Some 48 hours has elapsed and only one new argument was raised and that has no actual example(s) of any country no longer granting reciprocal licenses to amy of the 20+ countries that have already ended all code testing. Cheers, Bill K2UNK any thought on how you will keep this up? just cruious my own siggestion is 7 days then weekly til the R&O comes out Since the comment phase is now officially closed I was only asking if anyone knew of any new arguments filed in support of code testing. Jim N2EY gave us one...but, now that I think about it, he never actually said that he or anyone else actually submitted that argument as actual comments to the NPRM. My opinion, we ain't gonna see anything new beyond Jim's rather weak addition...which may not even by an actual submission. I'll give the folks a week or so per your suggestion "old friend". Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
Day 4 - 05-235 - Any new procode test arguments?
Bill Sohl wrote: Still nothing of any consequence. Cheers, Bill K2UNK "Bill Sohl" wrote in message ink.net... "an old friend" wrote in message groups.com... Bill Sohl wrote: Some 48 hours has elapsed and only one new argument was raised and that has no actual example(s) of any country no longer granting reciprocal licenses to amy of the 20+ countries that have already ended all code testing. Cheers, Bill K2UNK any thought on how you will keep this up? just cruious my own siggestion is 7 days then weekly til the R&O comes out Since the comment phase is now officially closed I was only asking if anyone knew of any new arguments filed in support of code testing. Jim N2EY gave us one...but, now that I think about it, he never actually said that he or anyone else actually submitted that argument as actual comments to the NPRM. My opinion, we ain't gonna see anything new beyond Jim's rather weak addition...which may not even by an actual submission. I'll give the folks a week or so per your suggestion "old friend". Cheers, Bill K2UNK I did see at least one comment (no idea who's) that mentioned reciprocal licenses. I believe it proposed not the retention of code testing to get a license but some form of code endorsement to satisfy some other country's requirement. John |
Day 4 - 05-235 - Any new procode test arguments?
John wrote: Bill Sohl wrote: Still nothing of any consequence. cut I did see at least one comment (no idea who's) that mentioned reciprocal licenses. I believe it proposed not the retention of code testing to get a license but some form of code endorsement to satisfy some other country's requirement. Jim refers to this idea but can't id any comenteor that made it BillSohl addressed the issue elsewhere but that is IMO the best answer to what new idea has been advanced to date If you send me a SASE (kb9rqz) I will send you your wining's 1 cent and a note that you likely can't read congratualting you John |
Day 7 - 05-235 - Any new procode test arguments?
Well I thnk it's time to stop waiting.
Day 7 and nothing new. Cheers, Bill K2UNK "an_old_friend" wrote in message oups.com... John wrote: Bill Sohl wrote: Still nothing of any consequence. cut I did see at least one comment (no idea who's) that mentioned reciprocal licenses. I believe it proposed not the retention of code testing to get a license but some form of code endorsement to satisfy some other country's requirement. Jim refers to this idea but can't id any comenteor that made it BillSohl addressed the issue elsewhere but that is IMO the best answer to what new idea has been advanced to date If you send me a SASE (kb9rqz) I will send you your wining's 1 cent and a note that you likely can't read congratualting you John |
Day 7 - 05-235 - Any new procode test arguments?
Bill Sohl wrote: Well I thnk it's time to stop waiting. Day 7 and nothing new. Never is, and that's the point. Removal of Code Testing is long overdue. |
Day 7 - 05-235 - Any new procode test arguments?
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? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Day 7 - 05-235 - Any new procode test arguments?
|
Day 7 - 05-235 - Any new procode test arguments?
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? 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. 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. So if FCC wants to remove the code test for Extra, they have to justify ignoring what the majority wants. The R&Os from FCC are carefully worded, and that sort of thing takes a bunch of time. However the Govt is not known for its logical behavoir I don't think you understand "logical", Mark. |
Day 8 - 05-235 - Any new procode test arguments?
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 |
Day 7 - 05-235 - Any new procode test arguments?
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 |
Day 8 - 05-235 - Any new procode test arguments?
"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 |
Day 8 - 05-235 - Any new procode test arguments?
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 |
Day 8 - 05-235 - Any new procode test arguments?
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 |
Day 8 - 05-235 - Any new procode test arguments?
"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 |
Day 7 - 05-235 - Any new procode test arguments?
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 |
Day 8 - 05-235 - Any new procode test arguments?
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 |
Day 8 - 05-235 - Any new procode test arguments?
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. |
Day 8 - 05-235 - Any new procode test arguments?
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 |
Day 8 - 05-235 - Any new procode test arguments?
FCC & ARRL = Partners in the Culture of Corruption. |
Day 8 - 05-235 - Any new procode test arguments?
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message ink.net... You show your total lack of understanding of how the Culture of Corruption functions in the FCC. FCC & ARRL = Partners in the Culture of Corruption. |
Day 8 - 05-235 - Any new procode test arguments?
From: "Bill Sohl" on Wed 16 Nov 2005 08:35
wrote in message 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? 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 "new point" allegedly against the NPRM was raised repeatedly: "Morse code skill is necessary to defeat terrorists and save lives in hurricanes [Katrina]!" Not a valid reason but it was warm and fuzzy to pro-coders. :-) 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. Bill, the pro-coders are mighty macho motivated morsemen and pillars of the amateur community (by their own statements). They ARE the "public" the FCC is supposed to support! :-) Way back in time the pro-coders managed to set themselves up as "extra" amateurs BECAUSE of their telegraphy skill, all through lobbying to keep morse code as the "hot ticket." Radiotelegraphy got set up as the epitome of all amateur radio skills through constant bombardment by the [u-know-who] membership organization. Radiotelegraphy skill meant the telegraphers got the maximum perquisites in rank-status-privilege. Now the pro-coders are royally ****ed because "all their hard work" isn't going to mean dink in this NEW world. They demand holding fast to the status quo lest they lose THEIR self-esteem. 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. There is *NO* Real Majority in the Docket. As of 2 PM EST, 16 November, there are 3,783 filings in Docket 05-235 up to and including 14 November 2005. At BEST, the total number of filings represents only about 0.6 percent of all licensed United States radio amateurs. That's only a SAMPLING of the "amateur community" opinion. Joe Speroni is an unabashed proponent of morse code use and does not claim statistician training or experience (despite what Robert Rightsell said on 14 November), yet Jimmie keeps on stating "a majority wants code testing to stay" by virtue of nebulous interpretation by Speroni. Speroni's "55 percent" is waved like it is some ABSOLUTE TRUTH, almost a Divine Word. Pfaugh. Speroni SPIN. The usual biased pro-coder merry-go- round spinning, making only the pro-coders dizzy. There's *NO* Real Majority in Docket 05-235. It is just a very close, half-and-half mix of opinions. The Commission is stuck without the slightest trace of "consensus in the amateur community" of opinion on this highly-polarized issue. The Commission expressed a desire to see a "consensus" at the beginning of those 18 Petitions' comments 2003-2004 but it didn't get any. 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. Jimmie will pick ANY little bit to rationalize HIS opinion of something and has done so repeatedly. Then he turns right around and "blames" the Commission, pointing out some biased "majority" as representing the PUBLIC if a decision goes against him. 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). So be it. That the IARU was already for tossing out S25.5 before WRC-03 isn't considered by pro-coders. CHANGE is NOT allowed to status-quo-ists. shrug 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. About 10 1/2 months between the end of the official commentary period on 98-143 and the issuance of 99-412 Report & Order. The Commission had about 2200 filings to consider for their decision. This NPRM is far more concise in the changes it proposed and shouldn't (logically) take as long.. I'd say it's a toss-up on time. 05-235 has nearly twice as many filings as 98-143. The Commission has to do SOMETHING on editorial changes to regulations in regards to allocations of operating frequency privileges for Technicians. Other than that, the main issue of code testing go/no-go is quite simple. Different set of conditions on speculating on decision time. 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 :-) Sorry, the term "logical" doesn't apply there to any three of you. Governmental decisions are biased by POLITICAL needs, not "logic." Those that don't get what they want will try to enoble themselves as "logical" as if they are the good guys. That's a misuse of word definitions. What WILL happen on a very close race is that about half will be totally ****ed off because they didn't get things their way...and about half will feel victorious as "winners." What really happens - as it does in all Reports and Orders - is that the Commission DECIDES, making a long, laborious set of reasons for their decision with all appropriate references (appropriate as they see fit). Once a decision is reached, it becomes part of LAW...until it is changed again some time in the future. From what I've seen of past Dockets and resulting R&Os, the Commission does a thorough job of decision justifications, not just on amateur radio but on all services. Those that didn't get what they want will bitch and moan and make nasty but that's only "sore-loser-ism" on their part. The pro-coders have had Their Way for a long time and they feel They are "the public" or "more public" than others. They want "Theirs" just like They've always had it. The REAL Public can't be seen by them. The Commission tries harder to "look" at what the REAL Public wants...and that is a good thing in my mind. |
Day 8 - 05-235 - Any new procode test arguments?
wrote:
From: "Bill Sohl" on Wed 16 Nov 2005 08:35 wrote in message 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? 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 "new point" allegedly against the NPRM was raised repeatedly: "Morse code skill is necessary to defeat terrorists and save lives in hurricanes [Katrina]!" Who wrote that, Len? You write as if it's a direct quote. Not a valid reason but it was warm and fuzzy to pro-coders. :-) 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. Bill, the pro-coders are mighty macho motivated morsemen and pillars of the amateur community (by their own statements). They ARE the "public" the FCC is supposed to support! :-) Len, do you think phrases like "mighty macho morsemen" help convince the FCC to see things your way? Way back in time the pro-coders managed to set themselves up as "extra" amateurs BECAUSE of their telegraphy skill, all through lobbying to keep morse code as the "hot ticket." Not true, Len. The Amateur Extra class license required both a Morse Code test *and* a written test that many who passed both consider harder than the old First Phone. Morse Code skill alone wouldn't get anyone an Extra. Radiotelegraphy got set up as the epitome of all amateur radio skills through constant bombardment by the [u-know-who] membership organization. Wrong again, Len. The Extra did not come about because of the ARRL. And the original 1963 "incentive licensing" proposal from ARRL would have given all amateur privileges to Advanced as well as Extra class amateurs. Radiotelegraphy skill meant the telegraphers got the maximum perquisites in rank-status-privilege. Now the pro-coders are royally ****ed because "all their hard work" isn't going to mean dink in this NEW world. Do you think nobody will use Morse Code when the test is gone? They demand holding fast to the status quo lest they lose THEIR self-esteem. Gee, Len, you go on about others' motivations but say nothing about your own. 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. There is *NO* Real Majority in the Docket. Yes, there is. Try counting by commenters and not by total filings. As of 2 PM EST, 16 November, there are 3,783 filings in Docket 05-235 up to and including 14 November 2005. At BEST, the total number of filings represents only about 0.6 percent of all licensed United States radio amateurs. That's only a SAMPLING of the "amateur community" opinion. I specifically wrote "majority of commenters". Joe Speroni is an unabashed proponent of morse code use So am I. Is there something wrong with Morse Code *use*? and does not claim statistician training or experience (despite what Robert Rightsell said on 14 November), yet Jimmie keeps on stating "a majority wants code testing to stay" by virtue of nebulous interpretation by Speroni. Speroni's "55 percent" is waved like it is some ABSOLUTE TRUTH, almost a Divine Word. No, just the facts. All there for you to check. Did you find any mistakes that would change the results by even 1%? Or are you just ticked that someone else did a better analysis than you, and had the skills to put it on a website for all to see? Pfaugh. Speroni SPIN. Where? Do you think that someone who files a comment and five reply comments, all basically saying the same thing, should be counted as six separate opinions? I don't. The usual biased pro-coder merry-go- round spinning, making only the pro-coders dizzy. There's *NO* Real Majority in Docket 05-235. It is just a very close, half-and-half mix of opinions. Nope. There's two clear majorities of opinion, as expressed by the tally of commenters: Dump Element 1 for General and keep it for Extra. The Commission is stuck without the slightest trace of "consensus in the amateur community" of opinion on this highly-polarized issue. Consensus isn't a majority. It's a lot more. I don't think you know what a consensus really is, Len. The Commission expressed a desire to see a "consensus" at the beginning of those 18 Petitions' comments 2003-2004 but it didn't get any. That "consensus" statement is lot older than 2003. 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. Jimmie will pick ANY little bit to rationalize HIS opinion of something and has done so repeatedly. Then he turns right around and "blames" the Commission, pointing out some biased "majority" as representing the PUBLIC if a decision goes against him. Wrong yet again, Len. 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). So be it. That the IARU was already for tossing out S25.5 before WRC-03 isn't considered by pro-coders. CHANGE is NOT allowed to status-quo-ists. shrug Like those who oppose changes in nearby real estate? 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. About 10 1/2 months between the end of the official commentary period on 98-143 and the issuance of 99-412 Report & Order. The Commission had about 2200 filings to consider for their decision. Now they have a lot more to read. This NPRM is far more concise in the changes it proposed and shouldn't (logically) take as long.. I'd say it's a toss-up on time. 05-235 has nearly twice as many filings as 98-143. So what's your guess for The Pool, Len? The Commission has to do SOMETHING on editorial changes to regulations in regards to allocations of operating frequency privileges for Technicians. Why? FCC made it clear they see no reason to change the privileges of any license class. Their proposal is to dump Element 1, which will mean that any noncodetested Tech will need to get a General to get *any* HF/MF privileges. Other than that, the main issue of code testing go/no-go is quite simple. Sure - just make no change ;-) Different set of conditions on speculating on decision time. 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 :-) Sorry, the term "logical" doesn't apply there to any three of you. Governmental decisions are biased by POLITICAL needs, not "logic." Those that don't get what they want will try to enoble themselves as "logical" as if they are the good guys. That's a misuse of word definitions. What WILL happen on a very close race is that about half will be totally ****ed off because they didn't get things their way...and about half will feel victorious as "winners." Will you ever stop being ticked off, Len? What really happens - as it does in all Reports and Orders - is that the Commission DECIDES, making a long, laborious set of reasons for their decision with all appropriate references (appropriate as they see fit). Once a decision is reached, it becomes part of LAW...until it is changed again some time in the future. From what I've seen of past Dockets and resulting R&Os, the Commission does a thorough job of decision justifications, not just on amateur radio but on all services. Like they did on BPL? Those that didn't get what they want will bitch and moan and make nasty but that's only "sore-loser-ism" on their part. You mean like in your reply comments? The pro-coders have had Their Way for a long time and they feel They are "the public" or "more public" than others. They want "Theirs" just like They've always had it. The REAL Public can't be seen by them. The Commission tries harder to "look" at what the REAL Public wants...and that is a good thing in my mind. BPL? |
Day 8 - 05-235 - Any new procode test arguments?
From: "Bill Sohl" on Thurs 17 Nov 2005 00:55
wrote in message Bill Sohl wrote: wrote in message an old friend wrote: wrote: Bill Sohl wrote: 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. If his law firm is any good they WILL have ALL of them for reference. :-) Len isn't a reliable source. Tsk, tsk, tsk...Jimmie is being nasty again. :-) 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. Tsk, tsk, tsk...Joe Speroni's website is "official" even though he is an extremely-biased PRO-CODE advocate? Even though the URL was on the first page of the comments, he missed it completely. To those of us accessing the FCC ECFS as our only immediate source of information on Docket filings, the Comments are NOT on "pages" but are filed according to date. Didn't you forget the "IMHO" in regard to your opinion of Len's analysis. Jimmie NEVER forgets, Bill. He is like an effluent. :-) Jimmie is the "renowned amateur historian" in here, by his own admission. He is working mightily to be Law Giver. :-) Jimmie is so highly biased on issues that he defies classes, beyond Class C, even beyond Class F. :-) Ho hum... |
Day 8 - 05-235 - Any new procode test arguments?
From: on Wed 16 Nov 2005 19:09
wrote: From: "Bill Sohl" on Wed 16 Nov 2005 08:35 wrote in message 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? 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 "new point" allegedly against the NPRM was raised repeatedly: "Morse code skill is necessary to defeat terrorists and save lives in hurricanes [Katrina]!" Who wrote that, Len? You write as if it's a direct quote. Tsk, tsk, tsk. Jimmie seems fearful of exposure of something. Guilty conscience? :-) Had Jimmie gone INTO the ECFS filings on WT Docket 05-235, he would have SEEN THAT repeated many times. Jimmie did not, apparently thinks HE wrote it. Jimmie did not. Jimmie did NOTHING about "defeating terrorists" or "saving lives" during hurricane Katrina. Bill, the pro-coders are mighty macho motivated morsemen and pillars of the amateur community (by their own statements). They ARE the "public" the FCC is supposed to support! :-) Len, do you think phrases like "mighty macho morsemen" help convince the FCC to see things your way? Tsk. Self-appointed "Superior [Moot] Court Judge" Miccolis thinks this newsgroup is some sort of "communication with the FCC?!?" Jimmie, you are terribly confused about reality. Now you just relax, take some deep breaths, and go to the FCC ECFS and search for my name. [it is very easy given the software tools provided by the FCC...even morsemen can usually understand it] Look at any of my filings before the Commission. Examine them closely. Do you see any phrasing of mine using "mighty macho morsemen?" No? Well, then, WHY do you think I stated that to the Commission? Way back in time the pro-coders managed to set themselves up as "extra" amateurs BECAUSE of their telegraphy skill, all through lobbying to keep morse code as the "hot ticket." Not true, Len. ABSOLUTELY TRUE, Miccolis. Everyone realizes it. Why not admit that it is so? The Amateur Extra class license required both a Morse Code test *and* a written test that many who passed both consider harder than the old First Phone. Morse Code skill alone wouldn't get anyone an Extra. Prove that the "old First Phone" examination was "less hard" than the Amateur Extra exam. You never completed that last test element on your alleged Commercial radio operator license and could only get a SECOND class. EVERYONE knows that the Amateur Extra is granted ONLY when BOTH the code test AND the written examination tests are passed. One CANNOT have one without the other. Do you think nobody will use Morse Code when the test is gone? Irrelevant. NPRM 05-143 is solely about the morse code TEST. They demand holding fast to the status quo lest they lose THEIR self-esteem. Gee, Len, you go on about others' motivations but say nothing about your own. Tsk, tsk, you are trying the old, tired trick of Dudly the Imposter, attempting to misdirect the subject into some nebulous "personal" fault. It is readily apparent that MOST Amateur Extras prize their "accomplishment" and self-elevate themselves to a higher plane of existance that ordinary mortals. Do not be modest in appearance...such boasting of yours has been readily apparent since day one of your appearance on the AOL group all about amateur-radio-as-you-know-it-and-cribbed-right- from-the-ARRL-hymn-book statements there. There is *NO* Real Majority in the Docket. Yes, there is. Try counting by commenters and not by total filings. Already done that, Jimmie. YOU did NOT. You are trying to escape by accepting Speroni's biased website "tally" as "your own. You have NOT gone into the ECFS and real ALL the filings there or done your own sorting. All you do is blindly believe equally-biased pro-code "interpreters" such as Speroni and then try to make out as if you did it. The polarization of opinions is too strong, TOO CLOSE, for any statistical validity FOR EITHER "SIDE" to "win." You KNOW this but are unwilling to admit it after your obvious-to-all bias for code testing. Why do you persist in living a lie? As of 2 PM EST, 16 November, there are 3,783 filings in Docket 05-235 up to and including 14 November 2005. At BEST, the total number of filings represents only about 0.6 percent of all licensed United States radio amateurs. That's only a SAMPLING of the "amateur community" opinion. I specifically wrote "majority of commenters". Who cares what you "specifically" wrote? This is NOT Moot Court and there is NO penalty for some imagined charge of perjury you invent on-the-spot to justify your words. Joe Speroni is an unabashed proponent of morse code use So am I. Joe Speroni is also a multiple-petitioner before the Commission who has been DENIED by them each time. Have YOU petitioned the FCC for anything, Jimmie? Is there something wrong with Morse Code *use*? No. But NPRM 05-143 is NOT about morse code *use*. :-) Try to stay focussed on what the NPRM actually said. Are you fearfull that the Commission will take away your little morse code sandbox on HF? No, just the facts. All there for you to check. Did you find any mistakes that would change the results by even 1%? No, Jimmie, Speroni's RESULTS are ALL THERE IS. HE did all the "interpreting" and some of that is WRONG...see a "pro-code" comment from an English Department [instructor] who said out- right in her Comment that she is neither into amateur radio nor desirous of obtaining a license. What did Speroni DO about all those Comments of the 5 weeks between the release of NPRM 05-143 and the Notice in the Federal Register on 31 August 2005? Note the words of the Notice in the Federal Register - the one that makes the procedings legal - stating the OFFICIAL dates. Or are you just ticked that someone else did a better analysis than you, and had the skills to put it on a website for all to see? HEHEHEHEHEHEHEHE. Tsk, tsk, Jimmie. "Skills?!?" Money and time to afford preaching the morse code gospel for years? Long after EVERY OTHER radio service in the USA has dropped morse code mode communications? No, NOT "TICKED," Jimmie. I put my time and effort into a running account of numbers on the expressed opinions on NPRM 05-143 as seen on the ECFS public listings in WT DOCKET 05-235 and did it in THIS NEWSGROUP. I have no morse axe to grind long after all the other radio services (except amateur radio) have dropped it for communications. YOU DO. YOU are TICKED, Jimmie. You are ticked because the early Commenters were eager to Comment FOR the NPRM by a 2:1 ratio that went against the wishes of the pro-coders. Do you think that someone who files a comment and five reply comments, all basically saying the same thing, should be counted as six separate opinions? I don't. Tsk, tsk. Then MAKE YOUR OPINION KNOWN to the Commission. The Commission has established (long ago) the PROCEDURE of Comments and Replies to Comments. Think of it as a "hearing." It is NOT a "court." It is NOT some "election" and counting of "votes." The Commission takes in all of those filings and studies them, then reaches a decision based on what the Commission thinks is "good for the PUBLIC." The PUBLIC, Jimmie, not some vociferous pro-coder extras who think they are "better" than others by virtue of their radiotelegraphy skill. You already have a model filing in the ECFS showing "how to do it." Look in the ECFS under filings on WT Docket 98-143 on date of 25 Januarly 1999 for Steven James Robeson. Remember also that the LAST day of OFFICIAL filings on 98-143 was 15 January 1999. Try not to be as late as this Robeson person...and try to avoid his Klu Klux Klan style of trying to strip a citizen's rights guaranteed under our First Amendment of the United States Constitution. There's *NO* Real Majority in Docket 05-235. It is just a very close, half-and-half mix of opinions. Nope. There's two clear majorities of opinion, as expressed by the tally of commenters: Dump Element 1 for General and keep it for Extra. Tsk, tsk, tsk, Jimmie. YOU are an Extra. YOU love morse code. YOU are seeing what YOU WANT TO SEE. Consensus isn't a majority. It's a lot more. I don't think you know what a consensus really is, Len. Tsk, tsk, tsk, "Judge of the Superior Court" and Sister Nun of the Above is trying to tell a published author and editor "all about words and their definitions?!?" Webster's New World Compact and Office Dictionary (1989) states: "con-sen-sus: 1. an opinion held by all or most 2. general agreement, esp. in opinion." Don't try to explain your remark "It's a lot more." You will get into some strange mysticism of morse and the Beliefs of the Church of St. Hiram. Sorry, but the Commission is not bound by the visions of mystics and is compelled by law to separate church and state. Tsk, you are confusing your Nun's habit with the robes of a judge. Irrelevant since you cannot tell the difference. Jimmie will pick ANY little bit to rationalize HIS opinion of something and has done so repeatedly. Then he turns right around and "blames" the Commission, pointing out some biased "majority" as representing the PUBLIC if a decision goes against him. Wrong yet again, Len. No, RIGHT again. See all the postings in Google by "N2EY." Quid pro quo affirmation of what I said...including what you've said so far in your post being replied to. So be it. That the IARU was already for tossing out S25.5 before WRC-03 isn't considered by pro-coders. CHANGE is NOT allowed to status-quo-ists. shrug Like those who oppose changes in nearby real estate? NPRM 05-143 has NOTHING to do with real estate. The FCC does NOT regulate real estate; such is left to local state and county governments. Are you deficient in basic government of the United States? Stop trying to misdirect the thread. It makes you appear to NOT know what you are talking about. I'd say it's a toss-up on time. 05-235 has nearly twice as many filings as 98-143. So what's your guess for The Pool, Len? Irrelevant. Laws and regulations of the United States are NOT a game or lottery. Are you also deficient in basic law? Did you fail civics classes in high school? FCC made it clear they see no reason to change the privileges of any license class. Then WHY are you so concerned? Their proposal is to dump Element 1, which will mean that any noncodetested Tech will need to get a General to get *any* HF/MF privileges. Tsk, tsk, do you also try to teach your grandmother how to suck eggs? I'm well aware of NPRM 05-143 and what it said as of 21 July 2005. Do you need a copy? It's on the ECFS, pre-dated, under 15 July 2005. It has the time-stamp of when it was received by ECFS, different from its Search Results filing date. Does a Report and Order conform EXACTLY to what a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking says? At ANY time at the Commission? I've not seen ANY and that includes MANY different procedings, not just on the amateur radio service regulations. Would you point out which R&O was EXACTLY like its NPRM? That would reinforce your contention and your alleged prescience. What WILL happen on a very close race is that about half will be totally ****ed off because they didn't get things their way...and about half will feel victorious as "winners." Will you ever stop being ticked off, Len? Why do you say I am "ticked off?" We don't have any ticking device at the southern house. There's one at the northern house in Washington but that mechanical clock is seldom used, either by us (when we are there) or our house-sitter/occupant. Jimmie, I say YOU are the one "ticked off." You try to be an all-knowing guru of amateur radio in here, holding fast to the status quo (and the status-rank you achieved under old regulations). CHANGE seems to be anathema to you. You keep bringing up the past, the past before your existance, as if you had been there. You do not look to the future. You do not think of newcomers in any way except to go through the same motions as you had to. Your only interest seems to be triumphing all extras (you are one) as the ultimate all. Of course you hate CHANGE. It will destroy your self-esteem, your bragging rights. That must REALLY tick you off! the future. From what I've seen of past Dockets and resulting R&Os, the Commission does a thorough job of decision justifications, not just on amateur radio but on all services. Like they did on BPL? Access BPL, Jimmie. NPRM 05-143 has NOTHING to do with Access BPL. You have NOT looked at the latest regulations in Part 15, have you? I thought not. View those. Also, remember one thing: The FCC was NOT ABLE TO PROHIBIT any Broadband over Power Lines OTHER than place limits on its incidental RF radiation. Try not to misdirect into other areas when discussing NPRM 05-143. Those that didn't get what they want will bitch and moan and make nasty but that's only "sore-loser-ism" on their part. You mean like in your reply comments? Tsk, tsk, tsk...there you go again, taking things out of context and trying to misdirect discussion. YOU are NOT any "judge" of who can say what on any procedings and dockets at the FCC. YOU cannot accept opposite-opinion commentary or discussion without being ticked off...and making long-winded "discussions" and many diversions to different areas and taking things out of context. You are a judge of one...a judge of the Acapella Court, singing your little heart out to hold the amateur status quo as much as possible. Basic problem is that you are tone deaf and can't read the music. That is grating to all the listeners. "Got your ears on?" |
Day 7 - 05-235 - Any new procode test arguments?
Dave Heil wrote: 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. dave has gone delusional again flshing the rest unread without further coment |
Day 8 - 05-235 - Any new procode test arguments?
wrote: Bill Sohl wrote: wrote in message oups.com... an old friend wrote: wrote: Bill Sohl wrote: cut 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. do you have anything on the topic or just posting to attack len some more |
Day 8 - 05-235 - Any new procode test arguments?
|
Day 8 - 05-235 - Any new procode test arguments?
wrote:
From: on Wed 16 Nov 2005 19:09 wrote: From: "Bill Sohl" on Wed 16 Nov 2005 08:35 wrote in message an old friend wrote: wrote: Bill Sohl wrote: Way back in time the pro-coders managed to set themselves up as "extra" amateurs BECAUSE of their telegraphy skill, all through lobbying to keep morse code as the "hot ticket." Not true, Len. ABSOLUTELY TRUE, Miccolis. Everyone realizes it. Why not admit that it is so? Let's go through it, shall we? Pro-coders (one can only wonder if Len means those who favored morse testing, those who favored morse use or those who were simply proficient at morse code) made up their own regulations. It isn't explained how or if these "pro-coders" all became Extra Class ticket holders. Extra Class license holders can't obtain that license without passing the most difficult theory and regulatory written exam offered in U.S. amateur radio and not all of those with morse code skills became Extra Class licensees. Len's statement appears to have some gaping holes. The Amateur Extra class license required both a Morse Code test *and* a written test that many who passed both consider harder than the old First Phone. Morse Code skill alone wouldn't get anyone an Extra. Prove that the "old First Phone" examination was "less hard" than the Amateur Extra exam. You never completed that last test element on your alleged Commercial radio operator license and could only get a SECOND class. Kindly prove that the old Amateur Extra was less difficult than the old First Phone. EVERYONE knows that the Amateur Extra is granted ONLY when BOTH the code test AND the written examination tests are passed. One CANNOT have one without the other. One can now obtain it with s very slow f i v e w o r d p e r m i n u t e morse exam. That's very, very slow. It is readily apparent that MOST Amateur Extras prize their "accomplishment" and self-elevate themselves to a higher plane of existance that ordinary mortals. That isn't readily apparent at all. It is a false premise. Do not be modest in appearance...such boasting of yours has been readily apparent since day one of your appearance on the AOL group all about amateur-radio-as-you-know-it-and-cribbed-right- from-the-ARRL-hymn-book statements there. Anyone's accomplishments in areas where you've fallen short must kick your "braq quotionent" into high gear. I specifically wrote "majority of commenters". Who cares what you "specifically" wrote? I care. This is NOT Moot Court and there is NO penalty for some imagined charge of perjury you invent on-the-spot to justify your words. Yes, there is a penalty. You look petty by your attempt at squirming, Leonard. No, just the facts. All there for you to check. Did you find any mistakes that would change the results by even 1%? No, Jimmie, Speroni's RESULTS are ALL THERE IS. HE did all the "interpreting" and some of that is WRONG...see a "pro-code" comment from an English Department [instructor] who said out- right in her Comment that she is neither into amateur radio nor desirous of obtaining a license. Hmmmmm. Don't you fit right into that particular category, Len? Tsk, tsk, tsk, "Judge of the Superior Court" and Sister Nun of the Above is trying to tell a published author and editor "all about words and their definitions?!?" Somebody has to do it, Len. You foul up more words and definitions than quite a number of posters who've never done any editing or who've not had anything published. Dave K8MN |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:55 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com