RadioBanter - View Single Post - 05-235

November 21st 05, 02:45 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy

wrote:
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.

Tsk, tsk, tsk. NO "holes," Heil. An abbreviated synopsis
is all.

That's right. Unlike you, I'm not on a mission to recreate the great
American novel.

Before Restructuring took effect in 2000, the Extra code test
rate was 20 WPM. Why? Because the older-timers influencing
the NAAR lobbyists thought they were hot snit for amateur
radio because so many had been professional telegraphers.

I don't think you have the story. If you had it, I doubt that you could
recount it honestly. Your tale is still full of holes.

It was a way of keeping the old pro status past retirement.
Since they were already skilled in telegraphy, they got a free
set of perquisites in a HOBBY activity.

That's incorrect, Leonard. The Extra Class ticket was available before
Incentive Licensing. At that time, it offered no additional privileges
at all. It was never available for just passing a higher speed morse
exam. Your story is still full of holes.

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.

Heil, quit being the snotty lil kid trying to turn tables.

What were you attempting by posing your question to Jim? Were you being
a snotty little kid, trying to turn the tables?

That
makes YOU look dumb.

I thought it was pretty dumb when you pulled it.

I took all the test elements for a First
'Phone 49 years ago. I've seen the test elements for an Extra
of that time. The Commercial license was still more difficult
than the amateur...NOT because I took any, but because the
Commercial license covered a LOT more EM territory, a LOT more
modes in Commercial radio then.

I took all the test elements for the Amateur Extra in 1977. I saw the
test elements for the First Phone of that time. I disagree with your
statement. After all, does not all radio operate under the same physics.

Like Jim, I've also known Extra Class Amateur ticket holders who also
passed the First Phone. I've had some tell me that the Extra was
tougher. I've had others tell me that they were comparable. After all,
obtaining a First Phone wasn't rocket science.

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.

That's NOT an "answer," Heil. You can't throw your prunes
and say they are apples with that sort of response.

It was most assuredly an answer. Passing a f i v e w o r d p e r
m i n u t e morse exam is not at all like passing a 20 wpm exam.
The 5 wpm test is the same as the one which was given to Novice Class
examinees. It is slow enough that one could pass by counting dits and
dahs.

The statement still holds. In order to get an Extra ham
grant, every applicant has to pass BOTH the telegraphy
and written tests.

Of course it still holds. The test is just much, much easier to pass.
Unlike your original statement, one does not obtain an Extra Class
ticket simply by passing a morse exam.

That's in the regulations, not in
your stupid little s l o w w o r d s .

My slow words were much bigger than the fast words.

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.

Tsk, tsk, tsk...you do that very thing, Heil. :-)

Neither of my sentences referred to doing anything. :-) :-)

Naturally YOU will object.

Naturally. I usually object to a false premise.

You consider yourself SUPERIOR
in many ways, aptly demonstrated in here.

When it comes to amateur radio, Len, I am superior to you. I have an
amateur radio license. You do not. I passed all the exams which were
available. You did not. I have 42 years of experience as a radio
amateur. You do not.

I'll hold my
truths because they are SELF EVIDENT to any reader. :-)

You should know when to hold 'em and know when to fold 'em. I'm a
reader here.

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.

"It ain't braggin' if ya done it." [Miccolis' misquote of Dizzy
Dean] I did them. Not brags.

Amateur Radio: You ain't done it.

I specifically wrote "majority of commenters".

Who cares what you "specifically" wrote?

I care.

Then make your complaints known to the FCC. Litigate in civil
court if you are so upset about it. :-)

I may take option three: Counter your ridiculous statements right here
in this venue.

All the readers here KNOW you are "on my case" constantly, have
been since you tried that Guinea-Bisseau "embassy" thing years
ago and got sat on. Tsk, tsk. Such personal enmity you feel!

You've not sat on anyone, Len. That's simply another of your Walter
Mitty episodes coming on.

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.

Tsk. You are attempting the arrogant superior attitude again.

I'll go with my arrogant, superior attitude over your arrogant, superior
attitude any time. After all, you're in my playground, Len. This isn't
alt.glory.retired.engineer.

"You look petty" kind of puerile remark. :-)

Was there supposed to be a sentence in there somewhere? :-) :-)

I don't need to "squirm."

....but you do so.

I don't need Preparation H.

There is a subject open to debate.

All my
piles are on the other side of the screen, thankfully. :-)

I think you'd better check your shoes. You might be standing in some. :-)

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?

Obviously NOT, Heil.

It isn't obvious at all. You are neither in amateur radio nor
(according to your most recent statement on the subject) desirous of
obtaining a license.

I've been a hobbyist in radio-electronics
since 1947...

That isn't amateur radio.

a professional in radio since HF communications beginning in 1953...

That isn't amateur radio.

...a holder of a top Commercial license since 1956 as well as
broadcasting work in 1956.

That isn't amateur radio.

From the end of
1956 I've been in electronics-radio of the aerospace industry.

That isn't amateur radio.

I've been in partnership in a small business that required
a commercial radio station license.

That isn't amateur radio.

I've considered getting
an amateur license for FUN (writing it all-caps to emphasize
it). I've never considered 'CW' as "fun" and never considered
any time-wasting effort to learn telegraphy cognition.

There has been a code-free amateur license available to you since 1991.
You have not even attempted to pass an exam for that license. Your
most recent statement here claims that you do not desire an amateur
radio license. Would you like to see it?

I've not taught English at any college or university. In my
bachelor days I dated an English instructor of a college...which
as nothing to do with the instructor who did the comment used
by Speroni as being "for 'CW'" and claimed NO INTEREST and NO
EXPERIENCE in radio.

I can tell that you haven't taught English. If you had, you'd have
noted the obvious discrepancy in what you originally wrote about the
English teacher (above), "who said out-right in her Comment that she is
neither into amateur radio nor desirous of obtaining a license". Now
you've changed it to "claimed no INTEREST and NO EXPERIENCE in radio".
The two statements are very, very different. You're squirming.

There were 18 other filings in WT Docket 05-235 that were all
from LAW STUDENTS, none of whom had claimed any experience in
any radio transmission nor any interests in obtain an amateur
radio license. What did Speroni make of those? He doesn't
explain that. The Comment from "the English Department" is on
his pretty chart at the top showing some kind of agreement that
'CW' testing should be.

Yeah? You aren't involved and you are against morse testing. So?
Looks like you've encountered a dilemma.

As of 19 November 2005, there have been 3,786 total filings
on WT Docket 05-235. Regardless of using "valid" licenses
or total license grants in U.S. amateur radio, that number
(nearly twice those of 98-143) is still LESS than 1% of the
total licenses.

So? You don't have an amateur radio license. What percentage of
non-licensees in the amateur radio service made comments or replies?
It'd be a helluva lot smaller than the percentage of licensees who
commented. What's your point?

If you want to claim some kind of "victory
through a majority" in Speroni's counting/interpreting, feel
free. That only shows you are as biased as Speroni.

I'd compare you to some other biased anti-morse test individual, but
there doesn't seem to be anyone but you.

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.

Tsk, tsk, tsk...you are just being your (normal) uncivil self
there, Heil. All you really want to do is be "on my case"
in here because you want to CONTROL who posts what.

I've made no attempt at controlling your posting, Len. In fact, I've
never told you to go away or to shut up. You've done both. You aren't
very honest with yourself.

You want
a moderated newsgroup of such a condition that it is merely
some kind of auxiliary ARRL where all the radiotelegraphers
are given top privileges.

There is no supporting evidence for your ludicrous claim.

Heil, I've sold enough work through my work (without meeting
editors face-to-face) to warrent them paying me for my work.

You've sold work through your work?. The word is "warrant".

Done that for several years. No problems. Where references
were needed and known available for facts, those were listed.
Where references were needed but not easily available, I've
included copies for the Editors in Chief. I've had no nasty
notes from any of them on that.

Send 'em a few samples. Maybe you could include your reply to the
comments of Mr. Rightsell. Perhaps you could include a few archived
posts from r.r.a.p.

IF and only IF there were
some spelling errors or grammatical errors (actually none
that I recall), then those were due to the typesetters and
found on the proof sheets...*I* found them and notified staff
along with marks on proof sheets.

You'd better get on those r.r.a.p. no load typesetters. See above.
Did you find your errors and have you reported them to the r.r.a.p. editors?

Where changes occured
between manuscripts and proofs were due to printing space
considerations, something that occurs regularly, the editors
informing authors of that with requests to check the text
cutting and communicate back any needed corrections.

I get ZERO compensation for writing anything in here...

I don't think anyone here would stand for paying to read your output here.

...except
maybe a visceral enjoyment out of puncturing the balloons of
the mythmakers and the ego-inflated "superior" beings. It is
fun to see the totally-biased, self-opinionated get skewered
and hear their anguish over non-physical "wounds" when trying
to keep federal regulations to Their Ideas of What Must Be.

You're back to being Walter Mitty. Gotta love Thurber.

You've been punctured and wounded many times in here, Heil.

I've been here for a long time, posting from three different countries,
Leonard. I'd have certainly known if I'd been punctured or wounded.
You overestimate your abilities.

I can't help that.

I sincerely believe that you write many things here, Leonard, over which
you have absolutely no control.

As Super Chicken was told, "you knew
the job was dangerous when you took it."

Super Chicken? Who the hell is Super Chicken?

You just can't
continue to BULLY folks around as you have and not expect
someone to stand up to you and kick your verbal butt for
the way you act to those against your opinions.

Verbal butt? Oh, stop, Len! You're cracking my "message knuckles".

If you
want to remain deep fat fried and get overcooked, you have
only yourself to blame. I enjoy cooking.

It looks like you're currently doing a slow burn.

Dave K8MN