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

My purpose of the continually-running "scorecard" is just to get
some visibility into the "amateur community's" opinions on the
code test...unbiased by local groups' opinions on morsemanship
as either vital or neccessary in amateur radio. Think of it as
a poll of opinions by those that care to Comment, visible to ALL.

That's nice, Len.

But with all due respect, how do we know your scorecard is accurate?

Because he sez it is. Jim, in all honesty, if you doubt the
accuracy of Len's reports, please go thru the 2500+
comments and give us a readout of your own analysis.

(SNIP)

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

That would require an effort on Jim's part.

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

My purpose of the continually-running "scorecard" is just to get
some visibility into the "amateur community's" opinions on the
code test...unbiased by local groups' opinions on morsemanship
as either vital or neccessary in amateur radio. Think of it as
a poll of opinions by those that care to Comment, visible to ALL.

That's nice, Len.

But with all due respect, how do we know your scorecard is accurate?

Because he sez it is.

Why should that be good enough, Bill?

Nobody is checking Len's work.

There's no detailed results, just a couple of numbers. KC8EPO made a
detailed listing that was available to all - Len hasn't done anything
like that. He demands that others 'SHOW THEIR WORK' but doesn't show
his.

He has a demonstrated record of mistakes here, and an extreme
resistance to any corrections.

He's accused others of 'fraud' and 'massaged numbers' with no
evidence at all, except that his opinion was different.

He's also clearly not an unbiased observer.

Yet everyone should accept what he says as fact even though he
doesn't accept what others say if it contradicts his opinions?

Jim, in all honesty, if you doubt the
accuracy of Len's reports, please go thru the 2500+
comments and give us a readout of your own analysis.

Suppose I did, and came up with different results than Len.

Do you think he'd accept my scorecard as accurate because I say it is?

Or would his reaction be somewhat different?

73 de Jim, N2EY

No, you're not actually SAYING he's cooked the books (you're too slippery to make a blunt statement) but you're certainly spotlighting the possibility.

If Anderson was too "cook the books", do you really think the score would be nearly an even tie between the two camps (about 55:45 at last tabulation)?

Grow up.

The Man in the Maze
QRV from Baboquivari Peak, AZ

wrote:
From: Leo on Wed, Oct 12 2005 5:40 pm


wrote:
wrote in message
wrote:

My purpose of the continually-running "scorecard" is just to get
some visibility into the "amateur community's" opinions on the
code test...unbiased by local groups' opinions on morsemanship
as either vital or neccessary in amateur radio. Think of it as
a poll of opinions by those that care to Comment, visible to ALL.

That's nice, Len.

But with all due respect, how do we know your scorecard is accurate?

Because he sez it is. Jim, in all honesty, if you doubt the
accuracy of Len's reports, please go thru the 2500+
comments and give us a readout of your own analysis.

...or opine on how inaccurate it *may* be, without investing the time
and effort to substantiate your theory....... :)

There should be NO problem on ascertaining the accuracy of
anything where the entire contents are OUT IN THE OPEN for
ALL TO SEE. All that is left is to tally up the opinions
into the four categories I used...of all 2545 Comments filed
as of 11 October 2005, beginning with "comment" #1 on 15 July.
It's "easy." Just read every single Comment filed. :-)

Have you done that, Len? How would any of us know if you had or hadn't?

"For accuracy" Jimmie

Who do you refer to as "Jimmie", Len?

If you mean me, why not just call me "Jim"?

Is there some reason you can't do that?

MUST decide on what to do with the
duplicates (only two major offenders there, one FOR, one
Against the NPRM), what to do with the half dozen who are
Commenting on a totally different subject (not even amateur
radio), and generally try to decode what some of them are
trying to say (not always easy).

KC8EPO gave us a detailed breakdown of each comment. He got at
least of them wrong, though - mine.

Are you immune from mistakes, Len?

Those FOR, those Against the NPRM are fairly clear and un-
ambiguous. Should be an easy decision on just reading them.
For the "Extra Only" group it isn't that clear since those
generally add a lot of commentary that is NOT in the NPRM.

Does anyone else check your work on this, Len? Or do you expect that
everyone should consider you infallible?

Larry Klose got a lot of static on his large, and more
complex analysis of WT Docket 98-143.

From whom?

Show us some examples of the "static", Len.

Some links to usenet posts or websites where his work
was not objectively criticized would be a good start.

I don't think you can do that.

You're making the claim - you show us where he got "static".

That's still in the
ECFS database if anyone wants to look. I expected the same
on WT Docket 05-235 on NPRM 05-143.

Show us the alleged "static", Len.

Jimmie is getting draconian in his mistrust, dislike, and
general ****iness on those who won't agree with him that
morsemanship is the holy grail of amateurism.

To whom do you refer, Len?

Screum.

???

JIMMIE CAN DO HIS OWN WORK on the stats if he is so shirty
about it...and SHOW IT. :-)

Why should anyone else "show their work" when you won't show yours,
Len?

Besides, it's not about me. I'm not making any claims about what the
comments do or do not recommend. You are.

Seems to me that someone who is confident in their analysis of the
comments would be glad to have it checked by others. Instead, Len
attacks the messenger/questioner, as it were. Guilty conscience? Lack
of confidence? Faked results? Just plain mistakes?

Your behavior in response to my questions fits your profile perfectly,
Len.

From: on Oct 14, 9:20 am

Bill Sohl wrote:
wrote in message
wrote:

My purpose of the continually-running "scorecard" is just to get
some visibility into the "amateur community's" opinions on the
code test...unbiased by local groups' opinions on morsemanship
as either vital or neccessary in amateur radio. Think of it as
a poll of opinions by those that care to Comment, visible to ALL.

That's nice, Len.

But with all due respect, how do we know your scorecard is accurate?

Because he sez it is.

Why should that be good enough, Bill?

Nobody is checking Len's work.

Tsk, tsk, tsk...has anyone checked Jimmie's "work" on his ham
radio license totals? :-)

Jimmie just TAKES OTHERS' NUMBERS and says they are "good." :-)

The ECFS is so set up that ANYONE can go in and check my
numbers, for any given day or for cumulative totals up to
a certain day from any previous day. A problem is that
those doing that have to READ EVERY filing in order to
determine individual opinions.

So far, Jimmie doesn't do his OWN U.S. amateur radio license
numbers, hasn't gotten a daily high-speed download of the
FCC database nor sorted them all out himself. He uses
others' downloads and sorts. Tsk, he doesn't do a check-and-
balance comparison against at least two other amateur license
statistical tabulations.

There's no detailed results, just a couple of numbers.

There are 18 numbers in each of my postings since those of
31 August and the appearance of the Notice in the Federal
Register. Not a "couple." Jimmie is in ERROR. :-)

KC8EPO made a
detailed listing that was available to all - Len hasn't done anything
like that.

Jimmie is again IN ERROR. He should check out two Comments I
made under WT Docket 05-235 to find attachment tables of the
number and percentage of Comments of the given dates.

He demands that others 'SHOW THEIR WORK' but doesn't show
his.

Tsk, tsk, tsk. Jimmie is IN ERROR still. The FCC has "seen
my work." Jimmie hasn't. :-)

He has a demonstrated record of mistakes here, and an extreme
resistance to any corrections.

Tsk, tsk, tsk. Jimmie has just demonstrated THREE ERRORS
in his single posting!

No doubt Jimmie will try to rationalize everything and
say all those errors of HIS are somehow "mine." :-)

He's accused others of 'fraud' and 'massaged numbers' with no
evidence at all, except that his opinion was different.

To any PCTA an NCTA's opinion is considered "wrong" if they
do not favor morse code. :-) That's a given.

He's also clearly not an unbiased observer.

Given the highly polarized subject, it is difficult to be
objective on the subject of amateur radio morse code testing.

However, it is plain to see unambiguous opinions which
are posted on the ECFS...on both sides of the code test
issue.

Yet everyone should accept what he says as fact even though he
doesn't accept what others say if it contradicts his opinions?

Tsk. What I do is VOLUNTARY.

As I've said in here, ANYONE can go ahead and read each and
every Comment made since 15 July 2005 on WT Docket 05-235
and do their own statistical summaries...day by day if they
want. Nobody is stopping anyone from posting.

As of 2 PM EDT, there were 2558 filings made on WT Docket
05-235. All are visible to anyone accessing the FCC site.

Jim, in all honesty, if you doubt the
accuracy of Len's reports, please go thru the 2500+
comments and give us a readout of your own analysis.

Suppose I did, and came up with different results than Len.

Suppose you GET STARTED? :-)

Do you think he'd accept my scorecard as accurate because I say it is?

Why? You are hardly an "unbiased observer." :-)

Or would his reaction be somewhat different?

Jimmie, you MUST stop imagining these alternate universes of
yours. In order to "prove" what you postulate (or pustulate)
you must GET STARTED in reading each and every of the 2558
Comments and present them. So far you've not done that.

Not only that, but NOT ONE of those 2558 filings was done by
James Miccolis!

Imagine that...an important issue in U.S. amateur radio license
regulations and the self-styled guru of amateurdom hasn't posted
a single Comment or Reply to Comments on WT Docket 05-235 by
13 October 2005...with the NPRM appearing to the public on 20
July 2005! [released on 15 July and appearing in the ECFS
according to the date-stamp shown on the first page of their
single 15 July 2005 filing] Tsk, two and a half months now
and Jimmie hasn't said anything to the FCC directly...but has
been in here negatively criticizing all who are against the
code test!

Better hurry. The official cutoff date for Comments is only
two weeks away. The official cutoff date for Replies to
Comments is four weeks away.

Like it or not, history in United States amateur radio is being
made while you sit in here and attack all those who are against
your opinions on just about anything. :-)

Scorecard in the NCTA v. PCTA Amateur Opinions on NPRM 05-143:

As of 13 Oct 05, WT Docket 05-235 Comments on Test Element 1
Elimination/Retention tabulation:

ALL to Date Since FR Notice
-------------- ---------------
Grand Total 2558 585

Indeterminate (note 1) 161 51

Value for Percentages 2397 532

Against NPRM (note 2) 721 [30.08%] 166 [31.09%]
For NPRM (note 3) 1311 [54.69%] 275 [51.87%]
Test Extra Only (note 4) 365 [15.23%] 91 [17.04%]

Notes:

Notice of NPRM 05-143 appeared in Federal Register for 31 August
and established official end of Comments as 31 October 2005 and
official end of Replies to Comments as 14 November 2005. The left
column indicates totals for ALL dates. Right column indicates
all totals beginning 31 August 2005 to day of this scorecard.
It is unknown whether or not the FCC will consider Comments entered
prior to 31 August 2005, hence the two column format used here.
Fixed-font spacing used throughout.

1. Includes duplicate postings from same individual, "joke"
or "test" entries which do not have a valid address, or
polemicizing a personal pet peeve which has nothing to
do with the NPRM, individuals not understanding the
scope and purpose of the NPRM, one foreign citizen
submission, and six who were commenting on another
matter having nothing to do with amateur radio regulations.

2. Includes only those who are whole-heartedly AGAINST
the NPRM and against dropping any code testing.

3. Includes only those who are whole-heartedly FOR the
NPRM and the abolition of the morse code test. NPRM itself
(first docket document on 15 July) is counted as a "for."

4. These are "in-betweeners" who wish to retain the code
test for the "highest" class (Extra) but will accept
eliminating the code test for other classes.

Percentages are calculated from Grand Total less Indeterminates.

Stay tuned...the future of U.S. amateur radio is being made,
like it or not.

Iitoi wrote:
Wrote:

But with all due respect, how do we know your scorecard is accurate?

Does anyone check your work? You do make mistakes, Len. We've seen
some of them here.

Also, it's clear to anyone who reads your posts here that you're
hardly unbiased on the subject of code testing.

Indeed, you used the phrase "unbiased by local groups' opinions on
morsemanship as either vital or neccessary [sic] in amateur radio" as
if *others* scorecards are somehow biased - but not yours. You've
previously accused others of 'massaged numbers' and 'fraud' when their
data did not match yours, too.

So why should anyone *assume* the accuracy of your scorecard, Len? I'm
not saying you're intentionally cooking the books.....

No, you're not actually SAYING he's cooked the books (you're too
slippery to make a blunt statement) but you're certainly spotlighting
the possibility.

Is "spotlighting the possibility" of something not allowed?

Besides, "cooking the books" implies an intent to deceive. There's
also the possibility of honest mistakes.

There doesn't seem to be anybody checking Len's 'work', anyway.

If Anderson was too "cook the books", do you really think the score
would be nearly an even tie between the two camps (about 55:45 at last
tabulation)?

Maybe. That's not the point, anyway.

Grow up.

What does that mean in this context? That I should accept Len's
scorecard without question, just because he says so?

On 14 Oct 2005 12:39:50 -0700, wrote:

From: on Oct 14, 9:20 am

Bill Sohl wrote:
wrote in message
wrote:
snip

Not only that, but NOT ONE of those 2558 filings was done by
James Miccolis!

That is odd indeed - I would have thought that Jim would have been one
of the first to state his concerns to the FCC regarding the
elimination of Morse testing - considering that this is the last
opportunity to do so before the final ruling.

It would have been a far more productive thing to do for the hobby
that to attempt to ignite yet another flame war here......again......

snip



73, Leo

wrote in message
oups.com...

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

My purpose of the continually-running "scorecard" is just to get
some visibility into the "amateur community's" opinions on the
code test...unbiased by local groups' opinions on morsemanship
as either vital or neccessary in amateur radio. Think of it as
a poll of opinions by those that care to Comment, visible to ALL.

That's nice, Len.

But with all due respect, how do we know your scorecard is accurate?

Because he sez it is.

Why should that be good enough, Bill?
Nobody is checking Len's work.

I will repeat...if you feel there is an error or fraud,
do your own analysis.
In the beginning I started my own tally but since my results were
tracking closly with Len's and due to an upcoming month long
vacation I was leaving for, I stopped.

There's no detailed results, just a couple of numbers. KC8EPO made a
detailed listing that was available to all - Len hasn't done anything
like that. He demands that others 'SHOW THEIR WORK' but
doesn't show his.

Given the numbers that have been tallied so far, even a margin of
error of 5% misanalyzed would not result in a majority in favor
of keeping morse.

He has a demonstrated record of mistakes here, and an extreme
resistance to any corrections.

Yet you have shown no mistakes or errors because (IMHO)
you don't want to do the work.

He's accused others of 'fraud' and 'massaged numbers' with no
evidence at all, except that his opinion was different.

Feel free then to challenege his numbers in your comments or
reply comments to the FCC.

He's also clearly not an unbiased observer.

Nor are you or I :-) :-)
Why don't you pay for an independent audit.

Yet everyone should accept what he says as
fact even though he doesn't accept what others
say if it contradicts his opinions?

Then don't accept his numbers...do your own.

Jim, in all honesty, if you doubt the
accuracy of Len's reports, please go thru the 2500+
comments and give us a readout of your own analysis.

Suppose I did, and came up with different results
than Len.

It would depend on how different. For now, as I said above,
even if the numbers were deliberately misrepresented by
5% the "majority" would still favor complete and total
code testing removal.

Do you think he'd accept my scorecard as
accurate because I say it is?

Unless you do your own tally, it's only
conjecture.

Or would his reaction be somewhat different?

Any speculation on a reaction isn't worth my time to
consider.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK