RadioBanter - View Single Post - 05-235

November 30th 05, 01:31 PM posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy

wrote:
On 29 Nov 2005 14:53:19 -0800, wrote:

Bill Sohl wrote:
"an old friend" wrote in message
oups.com...
wrote:
wrote:
From: on Nov 26, 4:11 pm

(SNIP)

By the way, Docket 98-143 had 303 ADDITIONAL filings after the
twice-revised final end date of 15 Jan 05, the latest being
made on 5 August 2005! :-)

Why does that matter?

becuase it isn't suposed to happen at least if it does they are all
suposed to have been mailed before the deadline

why does it seem you don't care about the
rule of of law when it suits you

There's no violation of law if someone sends in a late comment.

sure is

There's a violation of law if someone sends in a late comment??

OK, I'll bite:

What law is violated if someone sends in a comment after the
deadline?

Missing the deadline simply means FCC isn't required to consider
the comment.

it means the FCC SHOULD not and I think is legaly barred form
consdiering it

That's not the same as breaking a law.

(SNIP)

FCC received over 6000 comments on the "incentive licensing" proposals,
Len. Without the internet. That's a fact.

indeed shwoing what a disaster the idea was

Not at all. The comments were split about even, for and against.

yes totaly

which way the coment ran shows very little and was another OT coment

Not at all. It shows the incentive licensing concept had lots of
support and lots of opposition - 40+ years ago.

how the ARRL tired to kill the ars

Shows how little you know of the subject.

cuting your lecture

Because it proves you're wrong.

the ARRL wanted to restrict the number that is recorded from many
sources

Show me one.

that the result was ripping the guts out of the ARS by killing the HS
clubs and making it rough to start one merely shows how out of touch
the ARRl was even then

How did incentive licensing affect highscool radio clubs?