NPRM 05-143, the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that would eliminate
morse code test element 1 from all amateur radio license
examinations was supposedly released on 15 July 2005. It is
marked "approved" as of 19 July 2005. A scanned copy of that NPRM
was marked "received" by date stamp as 20 July 2005 and introduced
to WT Docket 05-235 supposedly on 15 July 2005...but did not appear
to anyone accessing the ECFS until 21 July 2005.

NPRM 05-143 is clearly marked as to the Comment Perior being "60
Days after published in the Federal Register." That's on the
first page and page 25 of that 30-page NPRM document.

One problem: NPRM 05-143 HAS NOT BEEN PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER AS OF THE MORNING OF 30 AUGUST 2005! A month and a half
has elapsed since the middle of July, 1962 Comments have been filed
on WT Docket 05-235 as of 29 August 2005.

Access the Federal Register Contents page through GPO at:

http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/fedreg/frcont05.html

Noticeably missing is ANY filed Comment from the ARRL. In fact,
NO organization except for one local 23-member "DX club" has filed
anything under WT Docket 05-235. No Code International Executive
Director Carl Stevenson has stated that NCI will not make any
Comment for NCI until after the NPRM has been published in the
Federal Register. The ARRL has been very noticeably present at
every other amateur radio docket proceding before the FCC...but
not yet on NPRM 05-143.

The ARRL was opposed to revision of ITU-R Recommendation S25, in
particular S25.5 making it mandatory for all administrations to
test for morse code proficiency for any license having below-30-
MHz operating privileges. The IARU was for the revision, being
its principal author of change which was voted in at WRC-03. In
the two years since WRC-03 (July of 2003), the ARRL has generally
appeared ambivalent on morse code testing with the exception of
their Petition RM-10867 of 18 March 2004. RM-10867 called for a
retention of morse code testing for Amateur Extra class
licensees. RM-10867 was DENIED in NPRM 05-143.

From there on, it is speculation. The Comment period on NPRM
05-143 in WT Docket 05-235 has NOT OFFICIALLY STARTED. No notice
has yet been made in the Federal Register. There have been 1920
Comments already filed with the FCC on that Docket. Are these to
be rendered "useless" for consideration because of no Federal
Register notice given before they were filed? [see the Title
Block of NPRM 05-143 as well as page 25, item 54, for the period
of Comments and Replies to Comments]

Further speculation - fueled by suspicion - is that some sort of
behind-the-scenes "stonewalling" is going on...perhaps by
lobbyists urging the FCC to delay the Federal Register notice.
Of all the possible organizations having sufficient "clout" to
lobby the FCC, the ARRL is pre-eminent, retaining the services of
both a communications-law firm and a professional lobbying firm
in the District of Columbia area.

Yes, speculation is only speculation, no proof. However, time
is elapsing and a month and a half has gone by sine the release
of NPRM 05-143 and NO notice in the Federal Register. That is
out of the ordinary procedure of the FCC. The legality of such
delay is not known. We taxpayers can't peer far enough into the
inner workings of the FCC (or its lobbyists) to know for sure.

It may be that the failure to make notice in the Federal Register
is a human error, a lapse of duty performance. If so, it could
be corrected easily...but we ordinary citizens don't know. If so,
there still remains a question on whether or not 1920 filed
documents will be considered by the FCC on issuing a final
Report and Order in regards to that NPRM. Will those be a useless
effort by over 1700 citizens commenting?

wrote in message
ups.com...
NPRM 05-143, the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that would eliminate
morse code test element 1 from all amateur radio license
examinations was supposedly released on 15 July 2005. It is
marked "approved" as of 19 July 2005. A scanned copy of that NPRM
was marked "received" by date stamp as 20 July 2005 and introduced
to WT Docket 05-235 supposedly on 15 July 2005...but did not appear
to anyone accessing the ECFS until 21 July 2005.

NPRM 05-143 is clearly marked as to the Comment Perior being "60
Days after published in the Federal Register." That's on the
first page and page 25 of that 30-page NPRM document.

One problem: NPRM 05-143 HAS NOT BEEN PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER AS OF THE MORNING OF 30 AUGUST 2005! A month and a half
has elapsed since the middle of July, 1962 Comments have been filed
on WT Docket 05-235 as of 29 August 2005.

Len,

It is not at all uncommon for items to take this length of time and more to
appear in the Federal Register.

I know they (the FCC) are as frustrated as anyone else with the "lead time"
they sometimes face for the Fed Reg (produced by the GPO).


Access the Federal Register Contents page through GPO at:

http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/fedreg/frcont05.html

Noticeably missing is ANY filed Comment from the ARRL. In fact,
NO organization except for one local 23-member "DX club" has filed
anything under WT Docket 05-235. No Code International Executive
Director Carl Stevenson has stated that NCI will not make any
Comment for NCI until after the NPRM has been published in the
Federal Register. The ARRL has been very noticeably present at
every other amateur radio docket proceding before the FCC...but
not yet on NPRM 05-143.

Perhaps ARRL is waiting until the Fed Reg publication, too, so that their
comments will not "technically" be "premature."

The ARRL was opposed to revision of ITU-R Recommendation S25, in
particular S25.5 making it mandatory for all administrations to
test for morse code proficiency for any license having below-30-
MHz operating privileges. The IARU was for the revision, being
its principal author of change which was voted in at WRC-03.

That is misinformation ... the ARRL "got with the program" on the revision
of S25.5 and was represented on the US Delegation. They also pushed the
improvement of S25.6 by adding a reference to a recommendation that gives
administrations guidance on the (technical) things that applicants for
amateur licenses should be tested for (which NCI also supported).


From there on, it is speculation. The Comment period on NPRM
05-143 in WT Docket 05-235 has NOT OFFICIALLY STARTED. No notice
has yet been made in the Federal Register. There have been 1920
Comments already filed with the FCC on that Docket. Are these to
be rendered "useless" for consideration because of no Federal
Register notice given before they were filed? [see the Title
Block of NPRM 05-143 as well as page 25, item 54, for the period
of Comments and Replies to Comments]

As a practical matter, while comments file before the Fed Reg publication
are "technically" "premature," they will never the less be read and
considered by the FCC.

Further speculation - fueled by suspicion - is that some sort of
behind-the-scenes "stonewalling" is going on...perhaps by
lobbyists urging the FCC to delay the Federal Register notice.
Of all the possible organizations having sufficient "clout" to
lobby the FCC, the ARRL is pre-eminent, retaining the services of
both a communications-law firm and a professional lobbying firm
in the District of Columbia area.

As I said, the publication in the Fed Reg is beyond the FCC's control and I
know that they are just as frustrated as anyone else when this sort of delay
occurs.
Trying to "nail" the ARRL on some sort of half-baked "conspiracy theory" is
simply bogus. If the FCC doesn't have control over when the item gets
published, which they don't, how can you rationally assert that the ARRL is
"behind the delay???"

BTW, I *do* appreciate all the effort you've been putting into reading all
of the comments filed and giving us the stats ...

73,
Carl - wk3c

From: Carl R. Stevenson on Aug 30, 5:53 pm

wrote in message

It is not at all uncommon for items to take this length of time and more to
appear in the Federal Register.

Is a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking a legal document or not?

Does it not say on NPRM 05-143 that a stated Comment period
exists on both the title block on page 1 and in item 54 on
page 25? It says that the Comment period BEGINS when the
notice is published in the Federal Register. Both pages.

I know they (the FCC) are as frustrated as anyone else with the "lead time"
they sometimes face for the Fed Reg (produced by the GPO).

I don't "know" that. I'm just a citizen living roughly
3000 miles from Washington, DC, and depend on the Internet
for "quick" news out of my government. I have NO law firm
to "represent me" and can't afford a Lobbyist firm to push
for anything.

The only "problem" observed with the Federal Register TOC
page was a four-day gap two weeks ago...when they failed to
update the links to appropriate days for Volume 70 (all of
2005). Without a link to the Day TOC, NO ONE can see what
is in them unless they get the paper version.

Perhaps ARRL is waiting until the Fed Reg publication, too, so that their
comments will not "technically" be "premature."

...and perhaps the ARRL is NOT so all-fired "pure" as you say.

Then again, I am not running for any office at the ARRL.

Neither am I running for any office at NCI.


The ARRL was opposed to revision of ITU-R Recommendation S25, in
particular S25.5 making it mandatory for all administrations to
test for morse code proficiency for any license having below-30-
MHz operating privileges. The IARU was for the revision, being
its principal author of change which was voted in at WRC-03.

That is misinformation ... the ARRL "got with the program" on the revision
of S25.5 and was represented on the US Delegation. They also pushed the
improvement of S25.6 by adding a reference to a recommendation that gives
administrations guidance on the (technical) things that applicants for
amateur licenses should be tested for (which NCI also supported).

I wasn't IN Geneva, Switzerland, for WRC-03. All I read are the
U.S. Delegation's Report on WRC-03, comments from the IARU on
their web page, comments on several other web pages, and a few
items that have made it into print so far.

I read what everyone else reads...and that INCLUDES Dave
Sumnner's infrequent postings from Geneva during WRC-03.

From there on, it is speculation. The Comment period on NPRM
05-143 in WT Docket 05-235 has NOT OFFICIALLY STARTED. No notice
has yet been made in the Federal Register. There have been 1920
Comments already filed with the FCC on that Docket. Are these to
be rendered "useless" for consideration because of no Federal
Register notice given before they were filed? [see the Title
Block of NPRM 05-143 as well as page 25, item 54, for the period
of Comments and Replies to Comments]

As a practical matter, while comments file before the Fed Reg publication
are "technically" "premature," they will never the less be read and
considered by the FCC.

Hello? Who are you trying to kid here? Ever hear of "sunshine"
or see the big red type on some dockets' Comment listings?

When did you work IN the FCC Carl?


Further speculation - fueled by suspicion - is that some sort of
behind-the-scenes "stonewalling" is going on...perhaps by
lobbyists urging the FCC to delay the Federal Register notice.
Of all the possible organizations having sufficient "clout" to
lobby the FCC, the ARRL is pre-eminent, retaining the services of
both a communications-law firm and a professional lobbying firm
in the District of Columbia area.

As I said, the publication in the Fed Reg is beyond the FCC's control and I
know that they are just as frustrated as anyone else when this sort of delay
occurs.

Gratuitous corporate doublespeak phrase.

The FCC is simply NOT THAT CONCERNED about amateur radio matters.
Want evidence of that? Go to the FCC home page, click on Wireless
Communications Bureau. When you get to the Bureau, click on
"Amateur." What do you see in "news" of procedings there?

Hello, the LATEST date is 8 October 2002 on DA 02-2475, Antenna
siting and support structure revision to Part 97. Damn near
THREE YEARS OLD. Not one single thing about the 18 Petitions that
went through from 2003 to 2004. Not one notice that NPRM 05-143
was ever released. Not one notice in the separate page of "open"
procedings from all Bureaus and Offices.

"Delay" is like a few days, maybe two weeks. The NOTICE for 05-143
hasn't been there for SIX WEEKS.

Trying to "nail" the ARRL on some sort of half-baked "conspiracy theory" is
simply bogus.

Bullsnit. Hello? I'm SPECULATING. Understand the word?

Don't get your legal briefs in a knot. A legal beagle you ain't
and this is NOT "moot court."

If the FCC doesn't have control over when the item gets
published, which they don't, how can you rationally assert that the ARRL is
"behind the delay???"

RATIONALLY, one only has to look over the past half-century or so
and see that, in the beginning, the ARRL used to get all that it
asked for, lobbied for, etc. All the way up to creation of the
much-beloved (by some) "incentive plan."

Since I don't work for the ARRL and am NOT running for office, I
simply observe what everyone else can observe and RATIONALLY put
together all the available information...and "connect the dots."
It's not difficult for anyone with a RATIONAL mind. Note I
emphasize RATIONAL. Those whose minds are "conditioned" or easily
swayed by nice-nice words that cater to what they want to believe
won't connect all the "dots"...those minds are NOT rational, just
conditioned (or "brainwashed" in the indelicate common phrase).

I'm just a citizen of the USA without a fancy title, can't put
words down on nice letterhead paper sounding like they are oh, so
important(!). Not being an "insider" or having opportunity to
hobnob with the rich and famous, all I or any other citizen can
so is SPECULATE...based on what has happened in years past.

BTW, I *do* appreciate all the effort you've been putting into reading all
of the comments filed and giving us the stats ...

Here's some "charm school" advice, Carl. If you want to SOUND
appreciative, put such phrases FIRST in the body of text. Putting
them at the last makes them look like the phony-baloney they
probably are.

I don't work for NCI. In fact, NCI REFUSED my no-dues membership
for over a year. I don't work for ANY big money or big
organizations and am NOT running to do so. Got that so far?
I've been doing small-scale arguing on this code-test issue since
three decades ago. And received the usual boilerplated form-
letter "replies" in surface mail, like a truly wonderful "answer"
from the late Vic Clark (?) once the elected president of the
older ARRL...which said if I "wanted to know more about radio,
buy the new book out "Now You're Talking!" Judas H. Cottonpicker,
after my beginning in HF radio communications, I was supposed to
read a "radio for dummies" book? Yeah, like thanks a lot, big
League. And the same to you.

I do some bookkeeping on numbers and percentages which are a bit
of extra effort. I read EVERY SINGLE COMMENT...for ME, not for
anyone else. I post the stats in here because I CAN...for
ANYONE's information-input. If those stats show code-test
retention, then that is what I would show. But, the stats
favor code-test elimination. Push aside the gratuitous corporate-
speak phrases and understand that. NPRM 05-143 is going to have
as large, possibly larger, effect on U.S. amateur radio in the
near future than the "restructuring" of R&O 99-412 did. Had you
read all of those Comments on WT Docket 05-235 and done an honest
synopsis of them, you would see the same. But, you are running
for office now, and that may not be in the center of your vision.

Oh, did you want nice-nice phrases down here? :-) Sorry, I don't
HAVE to work for anybody or run for office, I can speak my mind.
I've done the "charm school" thing (manager's classes) and passed
just fine. :-) Don't have to use those "lessons learned" now.
Difficult to take a RATIONAL, independent mind, ain't it? :-)

NPRM was published today (8/31) in Federal Register. Says comments
accepted on or before 10/31 and reply comments on or before 11/14. That
on or before wording does not state a start date - only an end date for
the comments. I have no idea what that means in legalese.
John

wrote:
From: Carl R. Stevenson on Aug 30, 5:53 pm


wrote in message


It is not at all uncommon for items to take this length of time and more to
appear in the Federal Register.


Is a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking a legal document or not?

Does it not say on NPRM 05-143 that a stated Comment period
exists on both the title block on page 1 and in item 54 on
page 25? It says that the Comment period BEGINS when the
notice is published in the Federal Register. Both pages.


I know they (the FCC) are as frustrated as anyone else with the "lead time"
they sometimes face for the Fed Reg (produced by the GPO).


I don't "know" that. I'm just a citizen living roughly
3000 miles from Washington, DC, and depend on the Internet
for "quick" news out of my government. I have NO law firm
to "represent me" and can't afford a Lobbyist firm to push
for anything.

The only "problem" observed with the Federal Register TOC
page was a four-day gap two weeks ago...when they failed to
update the links to appropriate days for Volume 70 (all of
2005). Without a link to the Day TOC, NO ONE can see what
is in them unless they get the paper version.


Perhaps ARRL is waiting until the Fed Reg publication, too, so that their
comments will not "technically" be "premature."


...and perhaps the ARRL is NOT so all-fired "pure" as you say.

Then again, I am not running for any office at the ARRL.

Neither am I running for any office at NCI.



The ARRL was opposed to revision of ITU-R Recommendation S25, in
particular S25.5 making it mandatory for all administrations to
test for morse code proficiency for any license having below-30-
MHz operating privileges. The IARU was for the revision, being
its principal author of change which was voted in at WRC-03.

That is misinformation ... the ARRL "got with the program" on the revision
of S25.5 and was represented on the US Delegation. They also pushed the
improvement of S25.6 by adding a reference to a recommendation that gives
administrations guidance on the (technical) things that applicants for
amateur licenses should be tested for (which NCI also supported).


I wasn't IN Geneva, Switzerland, for WRC-03. All I read are the
U.S. Delegation's Report on WRC-03, comments from the IARU on
their web page, comments on several other web pages, and a few
items that have made it into print so far.

I read what everyone else reads...and that INCLUDES Dave
Sumnner's infrequent postings from Geneva during WRC-03.


From there on, it is speculation. The Comment period on NPRM
05-143 in WT Docket 05-235 has NOT OFFICIALLY STARTED. No notice
has yet been made in the Federal Register. There have been 1920
Comments already filed with the FCC on that Docket. Are these to
be rendered "useless" for consideration because of no Federal
Register notice given before they were filed? [see the Title
Block of NPRM 05-143 as well as page 25, item 54, for the period
of Comments and Replies to Comments]

As a practical matter, while comments file before the Fed Reg publication
are "technically" "premature," they will never the less be read and
considered by the FCC.


Hello? Who are you trying to kid here? Ever hear of "sunshine"
or see the big red type on some dockets' Comment listings?

When did you work IN the FCC Carl?



Further speculation - fueled by suspicion - is that some sort of
behind-the-scenes "stonewalling" is going on...perhaps by
lobbyists urging the FCC to delay the Federal Register notice.
Of all the possible organizations having sufficient "clout" to
lobby the FCC, the ARRL is pre-eminent, retaining the services of
both a communications-law firm and a professional lobbying firm
in the District of Columbia area.

As I said, the publication in the Fed Reg is beyond the FCC's control and I
know that they are just as frustrated as anyone else when this sort of delay
occurs.


Gratuitous corporate doublespeak phrase.

The FCC is simply NOT THAT CONCERNED about amateur radio matters.
Want evidence of that? Go to the FCC home page, click on Wireless
Communications Bureau. When you get to the Bureau, click on
"Amateur." What do you see in "news" of procedings there?

Hello, the LATEST date is 8 October 2002 on DA 02-2475, Antenna
siting and support structure revision to Part 97. Damn near
THREE YEARS OLD. Not one single thing about the 18 Petitions that
went through from 2003 to 2004. Not one notice that NPRM 05-143
was ever released. Not one notice in the separate page of "open"
procedings from all Bureaus and Offices.

"Delay" is like a few days, maybe two weeks. The NOTICE for 05-143
hasn't been there for SIX WEEKS.


Trying to "nail" the ARRL on some sort of half-baked "conspiracy theory" is
simply bogus.


Bullsnit. Hello? I'm SPECULATING. Understand the word?

Don't get your legal briefs in a knot. A legal beagle you ain't
and this is NOT "moot court."


If the FCC doesn't have control over when the item gets
published, which they don't, how can you rationally assert that the ARRL is
"behind the delay???"


RATIONALLY, one only has to look over the past half-century or so
and see that, in the beginning, the ARRL used to get all that it
asked for, lobbied for, etc. All the way up to creation of the
much-beloved (by some) "incentive plan."

Since I don't work for the ARRL and am NOT running for office, I
simply observe what everyone else can observe and RATIONALLY put
together all the available information...and "connect the dots."
It's not difficult for anyone with a RATIONAL mind. Note I
emphasize RATIONAL. Those whose minds are "conditioned" or easily
swayed by nice-nice words that cater to what they want to believe
won't connect all the "dots"...those minds are NOT rational, just
conditioned (or "brainwashed" in the indelicate common phrase).

I'm just a citizen of the USA without a fancy title, can't put
words down on nice letterhead paper sounding like they are oh, so
important(!). Not being an "insider" or having opportunity to
hobnob with the rich and famous, all I or any other citizen can
so is SPECULATE...based on what has happened in years past.


BTW, I *do* appreciate all the effort you've been putting into reading all
of the comments filed and giving us the stats ...


Here's some "charm school" advice, Carl. If you want to SOUND
appreciative, put such phrases FIRST in the body of text. Putting
them at the last makes them look like the phony-baloney they
probably are.

I don't work for NCI. In fact, NCI REFUSED my no-dues membership
for over a year. I don't work for ANY big money or big
organizations and am NOT running to do so. Got that so far?
I've been doing small-scale arguing on this code-test issue since
three decades ago. And received the usual boilerplated form-
letter "replies" in surface mail, like a truly wonderful "answer"
from the late Vic Clark (?) once the elected president of the
older ARRL...which said if I "wanted to know more about radio,
buy the new book out "Now You're Talking!" Judas H. Cottonpicker,
after my beginning in HF radio communications, I was supposed to
read a "radio for dummies" book? Yeah, like thanks a lot, big
League. And the same to you.

I do some bookkeeping on numbers and percentages which are a bit
of extra effort. I read EVERY SINGLE COMMENT...for ME, not for
anyone else. I post the stats in here because I CAN...for
ANYONE's information-input. If those stats show code-test
retention, then that is what I would show. But, the stats
favor code-test elimination. Push aside the gratuitous corporate-
speak phrases and understand that. NPRM 05-143 is going to have
as large, possibly larger, effect on U.S. amateur radio in the
near future than the "restructuring" of R&O 99-412 did. Had you
read all of those Comments on WT Docket 05-235 and done an honest
synopsis of them, you would see the same. But, you are running
for office now, and that may not be in the center of your vision.

Oh, did you want nice-nice phrases down here? :-) Sorry, I don't
HAVE to work for anybody or run for office, I can speak my mind.
I've done the "charm school" thing (manager's classes) and passed
just fine. :-) Don't have to use those "lessons learned" now.
Difficult to take a RATIONAL, independent mind, ain't it? :-)

wrote:
From: Carl R. Stevenson on Aug 30, 5:53 pm


wrote in message


It is not at all uncommon for items to take this length of time and more to
appear in the Federal Register.


Is a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking a legal document or not?

Does it not say on NPRM 05-143 that a stated Comment period
exists on both the title block on page 1 and in item 54 on
page 25? It says that the Comment period BEGINS when the
notice is published in the Federal Register. Both pages.


I know they (the FCC) are as frustrated as anyone else with the "lead time"
they sometimes face for the Fed Reg (produced by the GPO).


I don't "know" that. I'm just a citizen living roughly
3000 miles from Washington, DC, and depend on the Internet
for "quick" news out of my government. I have NO law firm
to "represent me" and can't afford a Lobbyist firm to push
for anything.

The only "problem" observed with the Federal Register TOC
page was a four-day gap two weeks ago...when they failed to
update the links to appropriate days for Volume 70 (all of
2005). Without a link to the Day TOC, NO ONE can see what
is in them unless they get the paper version.


Perhaps ARRL is waiting until the Fed Reg publication, too, so that their
comments will not "technically" be "premature."


...and perhaps the ARRL is NOT so all-fired "pure" as you say.

Then again, I am not running for any office at the ARRL.

Neither am I running for any office at NCI.



The ARRL was opposed to revision of ITU-R Recommendation S25, in
particular S25.5 making it mandatory for all administrations to
test for morse code proficiency for any license having below-30-
MHz operating privileges. The IARU was for the revision, being
its principal author of change which was voted in at WRC-03.

That is misinformation ... the ARRL "got with the program" on the revision
of S25.5 and was represented on the US Delegation. They also pushed the
improvement of S25.6 by adding a reference to a recommendation that gives
administrations guidance on the (technical) things that applicants for
amateur licenses should be tested for (which NCI also supported).


I wasn't IN Geneva, Switzerland, for WRC-03. All I read are the
U.S. Delegation's Report on WRC-03, comments from the IARU on
their web page, comments on several other web pages, and a few
items that have made it into print so far.

I read what everyone else reads...and that INCLUDES Dave
Sumnner's infrequent postings from Geneva during WRC-03.


From there on, it is speculation. The Comment period on NPRM
05-143 in WT Docket 05-235 has NOT OFFICIALLY STARTED. No notice
has yet been made in the Federal Register. There have been 1920
Comments already filed with the FCC on that Docket. Are these to
be rendered "useless" for consideration because of no Federal
Register notice given before they were filed? [see the Title
Block of NPRM 05-143 as well as page 25, item 54, for the period
of Comments and Replies to Comments]

As a practical matter, while comments file before the Fed Reg publication
are "technically" "premature," they will never the less be read and
considered by the FCC.


Hello? Who are you trying to kid here? Ever hear of "sunshine"
or see the big red type on some dockets' Comment listings?

When did you work IN the FCC Carl?



Further speculation - fueled by suspicion - is that some sort of
behind-the-scenes "stonewalling" is going on...perhaps by
lobbyists urging the FCC to delay the Federal Register notice.
Of all the possible organizations having sufficient "clout" to
lobby the FCC, the ARRL is pre-eminent, retaining the services of
both a communications-law firm and a professional lobbying firm
in the District of Columbia area.

As I said, the publication in the Fed Reg is beyond the FCC's control and I
know that they are just as frustrated as anyone else when this sort of delay
occurs.


Gratuitous corporate doublespeak phrase.

The FCC is simply NOT THAT CONCERNED about amateur radio matters.
Want evidence of that? Go to the FCC home page, click on Wireless
Communications Bureau. When you get to the Bureau, click on
"Amateur." What do you see in "news" of procedings there?

Hello, the LATEST date is 8 October 2002 on DA 02-2475, Antenna
siting and support structure revision to Part 97. Damn near
THREE YEARS OLD. Not one single thing about the 18 Petitions that
went through from 2003 to 2004. Not one notice that NPRM 05-143
was ever released. Not one notice in the separate page of "open"
procedings from all Bureaus and Offices.

"Delay" is like a few days, maybe two weeks. The NOTICE for 05-143
hasn't been there for SIX WEEKS.


Trying to "nail" the ARRL on some sort of half-baked "conspiracy theory" is
simply bogus.


Bullsnit. Hello? I'm SPECULATING. Understand the word?

Don't get your legal briefs in a knot. A legal beagle you ain't
and this is NOT "moot court."


If the FCC doesn't have control over when the item gets
published, which they don't, how can you rationally assert that the ARRL is
"behind the delay???"


RATIONALLY, one only has to look over the past half-century or so
and see that, in the beginning, the ARRL used to get all that it
asked for, lobbied for, etc. All the way up to creation of the
much-beloved (by some) "incentive plan."

Since I don't work for the ARRL and am NOT running for office, I
simply observe what everyone else can observe and RATIONALLY put
together all the available information...and "connect the dots."
It's not difficult for anyone with a RATIONAL mind. Note I
emphasize RATIONAL. Those whose minds are "conditioned" or easily
swayed by nice-nice words that cater to what they want to believe
won't connect all the "dots"...those minds are NOT rational, just
conditioned (or "brainwashed" in the indelicate common phrase).

I'm just a citizen of the USA without a fancy title, can't put
words down on nice letterhead paper sounding like they are oh, so
important(!). Not being an "insider" or having opportunity to
hobnob with the rich and famous, all I or any other citizen can
so is SPECULATE...based on what has happened in years past.


BTW, I *do* appreciate all the effort you've been putting into reading all
of the comments filed and giving us the stats ...


Here's some "charm school" advice, Carl. If you want to SOUND
appreciative, put such phrases FIRST in the body of text. Putting
them at the last makes them look like the phony-baloney they
probably are.

I don't work for NCI. In fact, NCI REFUSED my no-dues membership
for over a year. I don't work for ANY big money or big
organizations and am NOT running to do so. Got that so far?
I've been doing small-scale arguing on this code-test issue since
three decades ago. And received the usual boilerplated form-
letter "replies" in surface mail, like a truly wonderful "answer"
from the late Vic Clark (?) once the elected president of the
older ARRL...which said if I "wanted to know more about radio,
buy the new book out "Now You're Talking!" Judas H. Cottonpicker,
after my beginning in HF radio communications, I was supposed to
read a "radio for dummies" book? Yeah, like thanks a lot, big
League. And the same to you.

I do some bookkeeping on numbers and percentages which are a bit
of extra effort. I read EVERY SINGLE COMMENT...for ME, not for
anyone else. I post the stats in here because I CAN...for
ANYONE's information-input. If those stats show code-test
retention, then that is what I would show. But, the stats
favor code-test elimination. Push aside the gratuitous corporate-
speak phrases and understand that. NPRM 05-143 is going to have
as large, possibly larger, effect on U.S. amateur radio in the
near future than the "restructuring" of R&O 99-412 did. Had you
read all of those Comments on WT Docket 05-235 and done an honest
synopsis of them, you would see the same. But, you are running
for office now, and that may not be in the center of your vision.

Oh, did you want nice-nice phrases down here? :-) Sorry, I don't
HAVE to work for anybody or run for office, I can speak my mind.
I've done the "charm school" thing (manager's classes) and passed
just fine. :-) Don't have to use those "lessons learned" now.
Difficult to take a RATIONAL, independent mind, ain't it? :-)

"...and INSULTING each and every person who contradicts him or just
expresses an opposing viewpoint. NOT a good image."

--Len Anderson

Sometimes you even snap and snarl at those who share your goals, Len.

Dave K8MN

Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
From: Carl R. Stevenson on Aug 30, 5:53 pm
cut


"...and INSULTING each and every person who contradicts him or just
expresses an opposing viewpoint. NOT a good image."

--Len Anderson

Sometimes you even snap and snarl at those who share your goals, Len.

sometimes he does as is his right. I am sure he will even agree you
have the right to snap and snarl at everyone who disgrees with you

but you missed the point(s) as usaul

Amoug them being

Your snap at everyone, your right but not a good image.

Len does reserve to right to snapp at folks too, event hose he shares
goals with

Indeed you miss out on the fact the Nocoders do disagree amoug
ourselfs, and we are free to to do so, a sign of the greater freedom
espoused by the NoCoders

but then you never seem to get the point, and indeed seem to prefer
volumes on evasion rather than answer a few simple questions

Dave K8MN

In . com "an old friend" writes:


Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
From: Carl R. Stevenson on Aug 30, 5:53 pm
cut


"...and INSULTING each and every person who contradicts him or just
expresses an opposing viewpoint. NOT a good image."

--Len Anderson

Sometimes you even snap and snarl at those who share your goals, Len.

sometimes he does as is his right. I am sure he will even agree you
have the right to snap and snarl at everyone who disgrees with you

but you missed the point(s) as usaul

Amoug them being

Your snap at everyone, your right but not a good image.

Len does reserve to right to snapp at folks too, event hose he shares
goals with

Len may have the "right" to do a lot of things, but if he truly wants to
"win friends and influence people" in this debate, and leave a personal
legacy other than that of a Usenet "kook," he might want to take stock
of who are his allies and who are his enemies. And even enemies can
become allies on some issues. Recently, Len insisted that he only posts
facts and truth, and challenged me to find examples otherwise. When I
did, finding several recent errors and subjective interpretations,
rather than acknowledge or rebut them, he chose to change the subject
and accuse me of being a hanging "judge" for daring to criticize. Len
also seems to feel he is entitled to unlimited public revenge against
those who have slighted him, and will lash out reflexively, and Serdar
Argic style, whenever anyone posts with certain "hot-button" keywords
like Morse Code. Serdar accused anyone who disagreed with him as
"criminal Armenian," even those who were ethnic Japanese. Similarly, I
wonder if invectives like "Macho Morsemen" are aimed at Kim and Dee Dee,
also.

When I pointed out areas of agreement, including one example where I was
the only one to side with him in this forum, he replied with, "I don't
give a flying fig about your 'position.'"

I also wonder why most of those that try to defend Len choose to post
anonymously. I have agreed with Len on some issues, and have posted
with my real name. One red flag that someone is being tuned out is the
number of likely sock puppets that start to orbit around him.

Indeed you miss out on the fact the Nocoders do disagree amoug
ourselfs, and we are free to to do so, a sign of the greater freedom
espoused by the NoCoders

I'm happy to debate with anyone on any subject, and though I may
disagree, I will treat that person respectfully, even going so far as to
separate behavior from personality. There's a difference between honest
debate and sniping, insults, and ad-hominem attacks. It's also useful
to clarify and make understandable your position by indicating whom you
may agree with, rather than solipsistically dismissing any worldview
other than your own with, "I don't give a flying fig about your
'position.'"

but then you never seem to get the point, and indeed seem to prefer
volumes on evasion rather than answer a few simple questions

Dave K8MN

My comments on this docket are forthcoming. No evasion or avoidance of
simple questions are planned.

--
73, Paul W. Schleck, K3FU

http://www.novia.net/~pschleck/
Finger for PGP Public Key

"Paul W. Schleck" wrote in message
...
In . com "an old friend"
writes:


[snip]

Similarly, I
wonder if invectives like "Macho Morsemen" are aimed at Kim and Dee Dee,
also.


Of course they are. Especially if one has not only passed the code but also
had the audacity to get their Extra class ticket. And heaven help you if you
actually USE Morse code.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Paul W. Schleck wrote:
In . com "an old friend" writes:


Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
From: Carl R. Stevenson on Aug 30, 5:53 pm
cut


"...and INSULTING each and every person who contradicts him or just
expresses an opposing viewpoint. NOT a good image."

--Len Anderson

Sometimes you even snap and snarl at those who share your goals, Len.

sometimes he does as is his right. I am sure he will even agree you
have the right to snap and snarl at everyone who disgrees with you

but you missed the point(s) as usaul

Amoug them being

Your snap at everyone, your right but not a good image.

Len does reserve to right to snapp at folks too, event hose he shares
goals with

Len may have the "right" to do a lot of things, but if he truly wants to
"win friends and influence people" in this debate, and leave a personal
legacy other than that of a Usenet "kook," he might want to take stock

again missing the point

an Old friend wrote:
Paul W. Schleck wrote:

In . com "an old friend" writes:



Dave Heil wrote:

wrote:

From: Carl R. Stevenson on Aug 30, 5:53 pm

cut


"...and INSULTING each and every person who contradicts him or just
expresses an opposing viewpoint. NOT a good image."

--Len Anderson

Sometimes you even snap and snarl at those who share your goals, Len.

sometimes he does as is his right. I am sure he will even agree you
have the right to snap and snarl at everyone who disgrees with you

but you missed the point(s) as usaul

Amoug them being

Your snap at everyone, your right but not a good image.

Len does reserve to right to snapp at folks too, event hose he shares
goals with

Len may have the "right" to do a lot of things, but if he truly wants to
"win friends and influence people" in this debate, and leave a personal
legacy other than that of a Usenet "kook," he might want to take stock


again missing the point

I'm sorry that you missed the point. Perhaps it'll come to you after a
re-reading.

Dave K8MN