|
Leo wrote:
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. Do you think it will make any difference, Leo? Do you think there's any chance FCC will retain Element 1? Will multiple comment filings make any difference? Besides, a good comment takes time to write. Why hurry, if it's so important? -- I think FCC will just drop Element 1. Sure, I'll file comments. So will plenty of others. But the stage is set for FCC to just drop Element 1. Here's why: 1) Back in 1990, FCC created medical waivers because Papa Bush wanted to do a now-dead King a favor. In the R&O, FCC said that they could not waiver 5 wpm because of the treaty - and only because of the treaty. 2) Back in 2000, FCC dumped all but 5 wpm code, again citing the treaty. 3) Now the treaty's gone. End of story. Have you seen a significant increase in the number of Canadian radio amateurs since code testing was made optional? Has there been a significant increase in the number of radio amateurs in any of the other countries which have eliminated code testing? By "significant", I mean sustained growth, not a short term flurry of new licenses and then back to the same old levels of growth or decline. If the growth doesn't happen, it means the code test wasn't really a problem in the first place. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Bill Sohl wrote: 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. I'm not making any claims about the comment totals one way or another. Len is. Let *him* back up his claims, not me. 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. So nobody is really checking his scorecard. 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. Actually, if 5% were miscategorized, there would be a very slight majority in favor of keeping at least some code testing. 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. Would there be any point to it? Suppose I "did the work" and found that Len had made significant mistakes. What do you think the reaction would be? I've "done the work" on Len's mistakes before, and the reaction wasn't very nice. Why should I bother to clean up after him again? 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. You miss the point, Bill. He's also clearly not an unbiased observer. Nor are you or I :-) :-) Neither of us is as biased as Len. Why don't you pay for an independent audit. Would it make any difference? 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. Why? FCC ignored majority opinion on the issue in 1999 - do you really think the majority opinion matters now? 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. Not exactly. 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. I think you know what his reaction would be, but you don't want to say so here, because you know how he'd react. Mike Deignan was right. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
wrote in message ups.com... Leo wrote: 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. Do you think it will make any difference, Leo? Do you think there's any chance FCC will retain Element 1? Will multiple comment filings make any difference? Besides, a good comment takes time to write. Why hurry, if it's so important? -- I think FCC will just drop Element 1. Sure, I'll file comments. So will plenty of others. But the stage is set for FCC to just drop Element 1. Here's why: 1) Back in 1990, FCC created medical waivers because Papa Bush wanted to do a now-dead King a favor. In the R&O, FCC said that they could not waiver 5 wpm because of the treaty - and only because of the treaty. 2) Back in 2000, FCC dumped all but 5 wpm code, again citing the treaty. 3) Now the treaty's gone. End of story. Actually you bring out a good point. IF (big if again) the FCC considered keeping the 5 wpm even if only for Extra, then the waivers would be needed again because without a treaty requirement for the 5 wpm test, there's no reason waivers shouldn't be available. (SNIP) CHEERS AND THANKS, Bill K2UNK |
wrote in message oups.com... Bill Sohl wrote: I will repeat...if you feel there is an error or fraud, do your own analysis. I'm not making any claims about the comment totals one way or another. Len is. Let *him* back up his claims, not me. In the end, what you or I think about Len's numbers makes no difference. Let's assume Len files his final statistics with the FCC, you can then challenge them all you want. 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. So nobody is really checking his scorecard. No problem in my book. 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. Actually, if 5% were miscategorized, there would be a very slight majority in favor of keeping at least some code testing. WRONG! If the current majority of 1311 (54%) went down by 5%, the number would then be (1311 -66 = 1245) which still gives a 52% majority in favor of the NPRM. (SNIP of repeated "what if's) Why? FCC ignored majority opinion on the issue in 1999 - do you really think the majority opinion matters now? Actually no I don't, but it doesn't hurt the nocode test cause to have a majority favoring the change. (Snip again) Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
From: Leo on Oct 14, 2:45 pm
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. Too much trouble for one of the "elite," Leo. :-) 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...... No, that is entirely "predictable" on Miccolis' part. :-) Miccolis of Morse was sorely wounded in the past verbal volleys and has never fully healed. His pain (or pane) must be severe to go to such great lengths of character assassination in order to assuage that pain. :-) shrug Just another spiteful person in this din of inequity. Just the same, James Miccolis has NOT submitted any Comment under WT Docket 05-235 nor has he posted any of his own statistics on NPRM 05-143 Commentary. All he wants to do is sit in here and make nasty to anyone who has. Pity that. The United States "amateur community" is speaking out on the code test. What they say doesn't sound good to those who became self-styled apostles of the Church of St. Hiram in their youth. Less and less of the litany of morse-is-the-best or the morsemen being the elite of hamdom. The morsemen want desperately to Rule and they can't realize that their "rule" is ending in a revolution of thought unfettered by the demands of long-ago, mostly-expired "professional amateurs" in the USA. The morsemen will grow increasingly bitter towards their end. This will only get worse and possibly remain that way for decades. Never mind that amateur radio is basically a hobby. To the amateur morsemen it is much MORE to them and their entire self-perception-of-worth is tied up in morsemanship... and their certificates (suitable for framing) achieved long ago. ============================= Back in 1958 the FCC issued an R&O creating the Class C and D Citizens Band Radio Service in the USA. Old-timer hams of back then were outraged and bitter that ordinary citizens could invade their (sacred) 11 meter band...without taking a single test of any kind! Horrors! The end of the (amateur) world to hear some of them talk at that time. I know, I had to work with some Amateur Extras and had to hear all their bitching and moaning and carrying-on. :-) Once the code test is gone in the USA amateur regulations the same bitching and moaning and carrying-on will repeat itself. That is also predictable. Pity that. |
From: on Oct 14, 2:49 pm
wrote: 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. Is anyone doing that, Len? Yes, but YOU are NOT. :-) Given the highly polarized subject, it is difficult to be objective on the subject of amateur radio morse code testing. I'll take that as admission that you are not objective on the subject. Tsk. You are going to "take" it any which way you can in order to do your attempted character assassination. :-) However, it is plain to see unambiguous opinions which are posted on the ECFS...on both sides of the code test issue. Is anyone checking your numbers, Len? Yes. Who checks YOUR numbers on all those bimonthly USA ham license numbers you post? :-) 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. You sure seem obsessed by it, though. Methodical, not "obsessed." Not near as "obsessed" as YOU are in attempting character assassination of anyone speaking out against your opinions in here... :-) 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. We all know that, Len. But you refuse to do it. Tsk, tsk, tsk. Nobody is stopping anyone from posting. Has anyone tried to stop you from posting here, Len? Has anyone told you to "shut the hell up"? Yes they have. :-) 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." :-) [morsemen are definitely NOT unbiased on the code test...] 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! [afraid of getting a rebuking Reply to Comments? :-) ] 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. :-) Gee, Len, you've just shown once again how predictable your behavior here really is. Is THAT all you can come up with? Tsk, tsk. United States amateur radio history is happening NOW. We are all (well, most) in the NOW, not living in some idealized past. Am I "predictable" on living NOW and being a part of history? If so, I admit it. That is REALITY. That is LIFE. I like it. All those Comments and Replies to Comments will be on file with the FCC in their Reading Room long after a final R&O on the NPRM is issued. It isn't ephemeral like some Google archive. All Comments will be there and on public view at the FCC. Official stuff. It's not some fantasy playground where you can play at lording it over others in a newsgroup. It's "put up or shut up" time, Jimmie. One or the other. |
|
|
Does the FCC have to make a decision on the code issue by a certain
date? If so, what is that date. Thanks in advance. |
"StatHaldol" wrote in message oups.com... Does the FCC have to make a decision on the code issue by a certain date? If so, what is that date. Thanks in advance. Don't believe so. They can take as long as they want to. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:49 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com