RadioBanter - View Single Post - 05-235

November 20th 05, 02:23 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy

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:

The "new point" allegedly against the NPRM was raised repeatedly:

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? :-)

No.

Who wrote:

"Morse code skill is necessary to defeat terrorists and save
lives in hurricanes [Katrina]!"

in their comments to FCC?

It wasn't me.

You write it as a direct quote, and you claim to have read all the
comments.
So it should be easy for you to name the author(s).

Had Jimmie gone INTO the ECFS filings on WT Docket 05-235, he
would have SEEN THAT repeated many times.

Show us, Len.

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?

No. But there are similar things that make you look like a complete
jackass.

Well, then,
WHY do you think I stated that to the Commission?

I don't. I was asking a question.

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.

Absolutely false, Len. Not one word of truth to it. You are mistaken,
wrong,
in error. Your denial is more of your typical jackass behavior.

Everyone realizes it.

Actually, no one but you "realizes it".

Why not admit that it is so?

Because it's not true.

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.

Why? I'm not making the claim - those who took both written exams
made it. Ask them.

You never completed that last
test element on your alleged Commercial radio operator license
and could only get a SECOND class.

So? You never completed *any* amateur radio test element.

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.

You apparently don't know that, because you 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.""

Do you think nobody will use Morse Code when the test is gone?

Irrelevant. NPRM 05-143 is solely about the morse code TEST.

Then it won't bother you abit if Morse Code use *increases* after 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.

Tsk, tsk, you are trying the old, tired trick of Dudly the
Imposter, attempting to misdirect the subject into some
nebulous "personal" fault.

No, I'm pointing out your double standard. Or rather, one of your many
double standards.

There is *NO* Real Majority in the Docket.

Yes, there is. Try counting by commenters and not by total filings.

Already done that, Jimmie.

Then you didn't publish it in your results.

YOU did NOT. You are trying to
escape by accepting Speroni's biased website "tally" as "your
own.

Not at all.

I'm refusing to accept the procedural mistakes of *your* highly biased
and error-prone tally. Such as counting the comments and reply comments
of the same person as separate opinions.

You have NOT gone into the ECFS and real ALL the filings
there or done your own sorting.

Have you? How do we *know* you have? Your behavior here
indicates you have not, because you missed major points made
by various commenters.

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 only bias is yours, Len.

The polarization of opinions is too strong, TOO CLOSE, for any
statistical validity FOR EITHER "SIDE" to "win."

Are you a statistician, Len? I think not.

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?

The "lie" is that you obfuscate your methods.

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?

Those who care about the facts rather than you windy, wordy,
blather.

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.

You made a mistake, Len old boy. Now you're trying to
insult your way out of it. Doesn't work.

Joe Speroni is an unabashed proponent of morse code use

That's a good thing.

So am I.

That's another good thing.

Joe Speroni is also a multiple-petitioner before the Commission
who has been DENIED by them each time.

So what?

Do you know what he wants in regard to Morse Code testing? What did his
comments say, Len?

Or don't you know?

Have YOU petitioned the
FCC for anything, Jimmie?

Don't you know?

Is there something wrong with Morse Code *use*?

No.

At last! Something we agree on!

But NPRM 05-143 is NOT about morse code *use*. :-)

Sure it is. If the rules changes affect Morse Code use, then
the proposal is about Morse Code use.

Eliminating the Morse Code test may reduce Morse Code use.
You'd like that, of course.

OTOH, there are reports that in some countries (Germany, Australia)
Morse Code interest and use have been *increasing* after the Morse
Code test was removed.

Wouldn't that be the ultimate paradox if the end result of eliminating
the
*test* for Morse Code increased its *use* by radio amateurs?

Try to stay focussed on what the NPRM actually said.

Try to stay focused on your spelling.

Are you fearfull that the Commission will take away your
little morse code sandbox on HF?

What "little morse code sandbox on HF", Len? There are no
Morse-Code-only subbands on HF. There should be, though.

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.

You can check them, though.

HE did all
the "interpreting" and some of that is WRONG

Where?

...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.

And how is that a mistake? What did she say about the Morse Code test -
is she for it, against it, or something else?

Besides, *you* are neither into amateur radio
nor desirous of obtaining a license, yet your commenting all over the
place.

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?

Included them in the tally. Why not?

Note the words of the
Notice in the Federal Register - the one that makes the
procedings legal - stating the OFFICIAL dates.

Do you *really* think the FCC will ignore the comments filed
before the OFFICIAL dates?

And if they *do* ignore those comments, and only take those
from the OFFICIAL comment period, what would the percentages
be - by *your* tally?

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?!?"

Yes. You don't even have a web page, even though AOL gives a free page
to each screen name. Even I have used the web pages supplied by AOL.

Money and
time to afford preaching the morse code gospel for years?

Website with a direct link to each comment. So anyone can easily check
AH0A's work.
You haven't shown a single case where his classification was unclear or
incorrect.

Long after EVERY OTHER radio service in the USA has dropped
morse code mode communications?

Who cares, Len? Morse code has *not* been dropped by Amateur radio.
Besides,
you said that "NPRM 05-143 is NOT about morse code *use*."

So what's your big problem with people promoting its *use*??

No, NOT "TICKED," Jimmie.

You sure seem to be. Almost all the time. Grumpy, yelling, flying off
the
handle, tantruming, acting like a tired two-year-old who won't go to
bed.

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.

Do you want a merit badge and a pat on the head, Len? Seems like it.

Or maybe what you really want is for people to take your results as
fact and not question your methods. Nor point out your mistakes. You
get really nasty and upset when somebody points out your
mistakes.

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 must refer to someone else.

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.

Commenters or comments?

Besides, those are from before the OFFICIAL comment period, right?
The ones you're afraid FCC will ignore?

What's the percentage from the OFFICIAL comment period?

Maybe the procode folks knew enough to wait for the notice in the
Federal Register.

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.

I'm asking *you*, Len. In this newsgroup. You're awfully ticked because
your bias and procedural errors have been exposed by me.

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."

So you think it's OK for you to lie and conceal. OK.

It is NOT some "election" and counting
of "votes."

The why did you count them as if they were?

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."

Which includes me, Len.

The PUBLIC, Jimmie,
not some vociferous pro-coder extras who think they are
"better" than others by virtue of their radiotelegraphy skill.

How about a vociferous anticode nonamateur who thinks he is
"better" than others by virtue of his lack of 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.

You mean the one where Steve told the FCC not to pay attention to you?
That was good advice.

Remember also that the LAST day of OFFICIAL filings on
98-143 was 15 January 1999.

Remember that you barely made that deadline, and had to use US mail
to do it. So your only commentary on 98-143 wasn't visible for comment
by others until after January 15.

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.

Now you're just acting like a complete, perfect, state of the art
jackass, Len.

There is nothing in Steve's comments that tries "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.

That's a good thing.

YOU love morse code.

That's another good thing.

YOU are seeing what YOU WANT TO SEE.

That's not true.

I am seeing what's there.

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?!?"

I don't know who those folks are.

But I am telling you that you don't know what certain words mean. If
you can't take correction, then you're not a very good author or
editor.

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.

But you do. You opposed letting the owners of real estate
near your house make zoning changes. You tried to keep
the status quo, so that others could not do what they wanted
with their own property. You failed in that attempt.

The FCC
does NOT regulate real estate; such is left to local
state and county governments.

And you failed in your attempt to stop change there.

Are you deficient in basic
government of the United States?

No. Are you deficient in analogies?

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.

I'll put you down for "no clue".

FCC made it clear they see no reason to change the privileges of
any license class.

Then WHY are you so concerned?

You don't understand what the NPRM proposes, Len.

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?

What does it mean to "suck eggs", Len? Does it mean to act like you?

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 the heck are you blabbering about?

The NPRM does not propose to give noncodetested Technicians any HF
privileges at
all.

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?"

Your behavior.

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).

You mean like the status quo of real estate zoning in Sun City?

CHANGE seems to be anathema to you.

You mean like changing the real estate zoning in Sun City?

I'm not against change at all, Len - *IF* that change is for
a good reason.

You
keep bringing up the past, the past before your existance,
as if you had been there.

So what? You do the same thing. In fact, you talk about the past
and present of amateur radio as if you were/are there - but you're
not.

You do not look to the future.

Sure I do. My vision of the future is different than yours.

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!

That's just your typical blather to avoid the facts.

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.

And they could have made the rules such that Access BPL wouldn't be a
viable system. But they didn't.

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're a sore loser, Len. In fact, you're even a sore winner.

YOU are NOT any "judge" of who can say what on any procedings
and dockets at the FCC.

Neither are you, though you try to be.