Phil Kane wrote:
On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 06:08:36 GMT, KØHB wrote:

Which raises the next question --- who CARES what the FCC wants.

I care what the FCC wants.

Your income is tied to what the FCC wants.

Whether I think that they are on the
right track or not is not the issue.

Correct for a barrister in your position.

We the people engage professionals to do a job, in this case, be the
"Highway Patrol of the Airwaves". We frustrate that by second-guessing
them at every turn, telling them that we know better, and thereby not
letting them do the job that we hired them for.

That usually involved the assistance of a barrister

If the bottom line is that the folks we engage do not do a
professional job, throw then out and get folks who will. This
presumes that you have better professional qualifications than they
do.

The NPRM and R/O of 98 sure didn't impress. How many of those folks
retired on a fat salary?

As an employer you know that scenario very well.

Hans is an employer? Of what sort?

They should serve the wants of the people, not the other way around.

No, they should provide for the NEEDS of the people.

Needs/Wants? Jim "needs" numerous license classes. As long as he can
stay on top.

Otherwise,
it's like letting the kids live on candy bars and soda rather than
health-giving food.

Happy New Year to y'all.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

Phil, Happy New Year to you, too!!!

wrote:
On 30 Dec 2005 16:21:17 -0800, wrote:


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

But FCC said no to
all of them involving more privs for Techs, new license classes,
automatic upgrades, and much more.

Yet nothing in the FCC's rejection even comes close to stating
their decision is absolute/final and irrevocable based on the
princioples that you ascribe to the FCC.

Of course not! No regulatory agency is ever going to say that
any decision is final and/or irrevocable.

indeed meaning most of what you have been going aboiut is meaningless
cut

In the few VE
sessions I assisted in I don't recall ever seeing one being
used. Was the waiver process abused by some?
Probably, but it wasn't a wide practice at all.

Who can say what constitutes "abuse" if the person got
a doctor's note?

accorsong the words of Stevie he is and by extention all VE's

Steveve has publicaly claimed that he refused to process a (inone case
that he admits to) a wiaver. likely there are other example s of VE's
doing this

it would be ilgeal but it has been done

cu

Mark, that posting needs to go to Riley.

On 31 Dec 2005 12:56:53 -0800, wrote:

I care what the FCC wants.

Your income is tied to what the FCC wants.

My income is totally independent of what the FCC wants. The agency
could be abolished tomorrow and my income will not change one bit
(unless "tomorrow" is the day that the COL increase on my pension
annuity and Social Security kicks in, as it will tomorrow). The FCC
has no connection with that, nor with the private investments that
also provide for my retirement income.

The NPRM and R/O of 98 sure didn't impress. How many of those folks
retired on a fat salary?

If you think that retiring on 50% of a salary that is 50% (or more)
less than what one could get in the private sector is "fat", I have
a (Weeatstone) bridge that I can sell you "real cheaply".

Do not forget that a Federal retirement annuity (prension) is not a
"gift" from the taxpayers. It is an annuity that is bought by the
employee with after-tax money and such purchase is not optional.

As an employer you know that scenario very well.

Hans is an employer? Of what sort?

Ask him.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

wrote:
wrote:
On 30 Dec 2005 16:21:17 -0800, wrote:


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

But FCC said no to
all of them involving more privs for Techs, new license classes,
automatic upgrades, and much more.

Yet nothing in the FCC's rejection even comes close to stating
their decision is absolute/final and irrevocable based on the
princioples that you ascribe to the FCC.

Of course not! No regulatory agency is ever going to say that
any decision is final and/or irrevocable.

indeed meaning most of what you have been going aboiut is meaningless
cut

In the few VE
sessions I assisted in I don't recall ever seeing one being
used. Was the waiver process abused by some?
Probably, but it wasn't a wide practice at all.

Who can say what constitutes "abuse" if the person got
a doctor's note?

accorsong the words of Stevie he is and by extention all VE's

Steveve has publicaly claimed that he refused to process a (inone case
that he admits to) a wiaver. likely there are other example s of VE's
doing this

it would be ilgeal but it has been done

cu

Mark, that posting needs to go to Riley.

it has gone to the FCC, the FBI, The TN BoN, the AF officers overseeing
CAP, the police, and the ARRL VEC

if you know how to get it Riley himself please assist me I am more than
willing to try the FCC again

an_old_friend wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
On 30 Dec 2005 16:21:17 -0800, wrote:


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

But FCC said no to
all of them involving more privs for Techs, new license classes,
automatic upgrades, and much more.

Yet nothing in the FCC's rejection even comes close to stating
their decision is absolute/final and irrevocable based on the
princioples that you ascribe to the FCC.

Of course not! No regulatory agency is ever going to say that
any decision is final and/or irrevocable.

indeed meaning most of what you have been going aboiut is meaningless
cut

In the few VE
sessions I assisted in I don't recall ever seeing one being
used. Was the waiver process abused by some?
Probably, but it wasn't a wide practice at all.

Who can say what constitutes "abuse" if the person got
a doctor's note?

accorsong the words of Stevie he is and by extention all VE's

Steveve has publicaly claimed that he refused to process a (inone case
that he admits to) a wiaver. likely there are other example s of VE's
doing this

it would be ilgeal but it has been done

cu

Mark, that posting needs to go to Riley.

it has gone to the FCC, the FBI, The TN BoN, the AF officers overseeing
CAP, the police, and the ARRL VEC

if you know how to get it Riley himself please assist me I am more than
willing to try the FCC again

Unlike Steve, Riley actually goes to Dayton. You could hand it to him
there.

Phil Kane wrote:
On 31 Dec 2005 12:56:53 -0800, wrote:

I care what the FCC wants.

Your income is tied to what the FCC wants.

My income is totally independent of what the FCC wants. The agency
could be abolished tomorrow and my income will not change one bit
(unless "tomorrow" is the day that the COL increase on my pension
annuity and Social Security kicks in, as it will tomorrow). The FCC
has no connection with that, nor with the private investments that
also provide for my retirement income.

I didn't realize that you were no longer practicing your craft.

The NPRM and R/O of 98 sure didn't impress. How many of those folks
retired on a fat salary?

If you think that retiring on 50% of a salary that is 50% (or more)
less than what one could get in the private sector is "fat", I have
a (Weeatstone) bridge that I can sell you "real cheaply".

Consider that the newer FERS states very clearly that your Social
Security IS your retirement. And I had been told all of my life that
it was a SUPPLEMENT to a retirement. The OF's in Federal Service are
getting a much better deal than that.

Do not forget that a Federal retirement annuity (prension) is not a
"gift" from the taxpayers. It is an annuity that is bought by the
employee with after-tax money and such purchase is not optional.

Writing a sensible NPRM appears to be optional. Does the FCC trot out
that kind of crap to the boradcasters?

As an employer you know that scenario very well.

Hans is an employer? Of what sort?

Ask him.

Will do.

On 31 Dec 2005 15:40:16 -0800, wrote:


an_old_friend wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
On 30 Dec 2005 16:21:17 -0800, wrote:


Bill Sohl wrote:
wrote in message
cut
Who can say what constitutes "abuse" if the person got
a doctor's note?

accorsong the words of Stevie he is and by extention all VE's

Steveve has publicaly claimed that he refused to process a (inone case
that he admits to) a wiaver. likely there are other example s of VE's
doing this

it would be ilgeal but it has been done

cu

Mark, that posting needs to go to Riley.

it has gone to the FCC, the FBI, The TN BoN, the AF officers overseeing
CAP, the police, and the ARRL VEC

if you know how to get it Riley himself please assist me I am more than
willing to try the FCC again

Unlike Steve, Riley actually goes to Dayton. You could hand it to him
there.

that is a thought I have considered going to dayton fest for years
never made the trip I will mark that down

_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

wrote:


On 31 Dec 2005 01:52:05 GMT, (Jeffrey Herman)
What separates an Extra from an Tech is not a "caste system" but rather
who had the motivation to study versus who didn't.


a simple lie one of the core lies told by on the side of the ProCode
test issue
in may case it borders on being a personal slander but that is all to
comon too

Claiming motivation or a lack of is a lie? How so? Back up your claim
with facts.

Motivation versus a lack of motivation *is* exactly why we have a
population of citizens with various educational, vocational, and
wealth differences.

Motivation is the key to everything. Study and you'll become what
you wish; if you do not study you'll never become anything.

Jeff KH6O


--
Chief Petty Officer, U.S. Coast Guard
Mathematics Lecturer, University of Hawaii System

Jeffrey Herman wrote:
wrote:


On 31 Dec 2005 01:52:05 GMT, (Jeffrey Herman)
What separates an Extra from an Tech is not a "caste system" but rather
who had the motivation to study versus who didn't.


a simple lie one of the core lies told by on the side of the ProCode
test issue
in may case it borders on being a personal slander but that is all to
comon too

Claiming motivation or a lack of is a lie? How so? Back up your claim
with facts.

that is of course easier when taking an extreme example which will
follow

telling and a person and emstraing the power tocarry out the threat if
if doesn't learn to flap his arms and fly the will be killed and the
wholepopulation of the killed first in front of him is plenty of
motiviation to learn to fly it is still impoosible

more on point you calim that the only reason I for example don't have
an extra class licnse today ist that I am not motivated enough to learn
code

I tired for years and great effort to learn but failed utterly the
reason for my lack an extra class license is not motivation but a lack
of abilty


Motivation versus a lack of motivation *is* exactly why we have a
population of citizens with various educational, vocational, and
wealth differences.

no it isn't or at least not entirely

I am not lawyer making millions at least in parts becuase I find mthe
conduct that would be required to sickening, and if some one car to say
my spelling is the problem then the blame falls on the factI got a
diffeent set of wetware than the rest of you

you have repated the standrad lie we have seen in all politics at one
time or another that all with less than another deserve their fate
becuase they were lazy

that John Kerry is not president of the USA is not a matter thathe
wasn't motivated enough. or do you claim thats it is

I thought he was going to win at one point. I beleive he lost in part
for making a tactical error in dealing the swift boat ads

your blanket stement that motivation equals succes is a lie

plain and simple

Motivation is the key to everything. Study and you'll become what
you wish; if you do not study you'll never become anything.

a lie jeff and a dangerous one

Jeff KH6O


--
Chief Petty Officer, U.S. Coast Guard
Mathematics Lecturer, University of Hawaii System

On 1 Jan 2006 02:19:56 GMT, (Jeffrey Herman) wrote
in :

wrote:


On 31 Dec 2005 01:52:05 GMT, (Jeffrey Herman)
What separates an Extra from an Tech is not a "caste system" but rather
who had the motivation to study versus who didn't.


a simple lie one of the core lies told by on the side of the ProCode
test issue
in may case it borders on being a personal slander but that is all to
comon too

Claiming motivation or a lack of is a lie? How so? Back up your claim
with facts.

Motivation versus a lack of motivation *is* exactly why we have a
population of citizens with various educational, vocational, and
wealth differences.

Motivation is the key to everything. Study and you'll become what
you wish; if you do not study you'll never become anything.


The problem is that what motivates you isn't necessarily the same
thing that motivates everyone else, and maybe not even a majority.









----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----