RadioBanter - 05-235 - Any new procode test arguments?

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.

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.
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.

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. That
makes YOU look dumb. 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.

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.

The statement still holds. In order to get an Extra ham
grant, every applicant has to pass BOTH the telegraphy
and written tests. That's in the regulations, not in
your stupid little s l o w w o r d s .

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. :-)

Naturally YOU will object. You consider yourself SUPERIOR
in many ways, aptly demonstrated in here. I'll hold my
truths because they are SELF EVIDENT to any reader. :-)

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.

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. :-)

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!

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

I don't need to "squirm." I don't need Preparation H. All my
piles are on the other side of the screen, thankfully. :-)

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. I've been a hobbyist in radio-electronics
since 1947, a professional in radio since HF communications
beginning in 1953, a holder of a top Commercial license since
1956 as well as broadcasting work in 1956. From the end of
1956 I've been in electronics-radio of the aerospace industry.
I've been in partnership in a small business that required
a commercial radio station license. 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.

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.

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.

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. 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.

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. 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.

Heil, I've sold enough work through my work (without meeting
editors face-to-face) to warrent them paying me for my work.
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. 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. 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...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've been punctured and wounded many times in here, Heil.
I can't help that. As Super Chicken was told, "you knew
the job was dangerous when you took it." 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. If you
want to remain deep fat fried and get overcooked, you have
only yourself to blame. I enjoy cooking.

Bon apetit y'all.

From: Dave Heil on Nov 20, 5:45 pm

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:

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

No? You would be GREAT as a character like Snidely
Whiplash or the Iceman (from Batman 2nd movie).

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.

Yes I do in the form of Volume 5 of the Title 47 Code of Federal
Regulations. In part 97 it definitely required all Amateur
Extras to pass a TWENTY word per minute code test.

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.

No holes according to a very OFFICIAL Volume of Title 47 printed
by the U.S. Government Printing Office and sold through their
branch stores 8 years ago. Allocations per class showed that
Extras got lotsa perquisites.

Wanna argue with U.S. government agencies? Go ahead. I ain't
them. Call up Dubya and let him know about those "holes."
Maybe Rove and Libby can fill them...?

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?

Tsk, you two are becoming indistinguishable. :-)

I took the 1956 Commercial First Phone test and passed. I saw
a 1957 Extra test and it wasn't as difficult at the First Phone.

Now some reel expert gooroos say that ham license tests are
now "dumbed down." Bayoo Broose he say dat many times. Many
others do.

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.

You disagree with ANY statement I make, senior.

BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

In 20 years there is room for change.

After all, does not all radio operate under the same physics.

Absolutely. But...the REGULATIONS, you know, the ones
made by humans in federal agencies, do NOT AFFECT electrons,
fields, and waves.

If the regulations are "equal" then the government would be
prudent (or under pressure) to have only ONE test instead
of two.

After all, obtaining a First Phone wasn't rocket science.

Tsk, I've never said that. However, I did work at a place
where REAL ROCKET SCIENCE was used in practice, out in
Canoga Park, CA, at Rocketdyne Division of Rockwell
International. [Boeing bought that division from Rockwell
and Rockwell owns Collins Radio... :-) ]

Why don't Heil/Miccolis tell us all about "rocket science?"

:-)

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.

So, you almost concede that I was right...there are TWO parts
of the Extra exam: Manual telegraphy and written. In order to
obtain an Extra class license grant one must pass BOTH.

I was right but you can't get up the courage to say I was.

My slow words were much bigger than the fast words.

? What in the world are you trying to say...?!?

When it comes to amateur radio, Len, I am superior to you.

When it comes to ALL radio, you are definitely NOT.

When it comes to sociopathy, you are superior to me in that.

I have an amateur radio license. You do not.

Do you want to go nyah-nyah on ALL licenses?!?

BWAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I passed all the exams which were available. You did not.

I passed all the exams (in one sitting) for a First Phone.
If I had not, the FCC would not have granted me that license.

I have 42 years of experience as a radio amateur. You do not.

Ech. I have 52 years of experience in PROFESSIONAL radio.

If you want to play "Twenty Questions," go get the game
from Parker Brothers. Tell them you've had 42 years of
experience as a radio amateur.

BWAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"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.

Sorry, but I have. :-)

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.

Tsk, I have three essential licenses in life...plus that
First Phone which was much later converted to a General
Radiotelephone. [that makes four, you don't need the
fingers on your other hand to count]

If I want to add an amateur radio license at some later time,
I will. I may not want to later. That is MY choice. [that
makes five but the amateur license is not what I would call
essential to life existance]

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

That isn't amateur radio.

YES, it IS. You fail to note "licensed" as a prefix to your
use of "amateur radio."

There has been a code-free amateur license available to you since 1991.

No kidding? FCC 90-53 was made into an R&O!

Sunnuvagun!

You have not even attempted to pass an exam for that license.

True enough...but you SHOULD say that I never made any
appointment with either the FCC or the VEC to take any
amateur radio test of any class.

I have the option to do so or not to do so. The Internet
does not require any amateur radio license. Only control-
freak bigots like yourself require amateur licenses to
participate.

Speaking of that, Mr. Control-freak, why aren't you on the
case of all those anony-mousies who have polluted this
newsgroup and made foul stenches for the last year?

What have you accomplished THERE in your self-righteous
attitude of "ethnic purity" in this newsgroup?

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.

Ohm my, isn't the control-freak wigging-out on English
semantics, word structure, etc., etc.!!!

You cannot comment on the GIST of the Comment by that female
but you wish to go to word-war over my choice of English in
rewriting something?!? That is truly pathetic and weak.

YOU show ME your English teaching credentials in order to be
the "judge" of proper language.

YOU show ME where you've spent time as an Editor at any
publication where language skills are a must. I've done
that YOU have NOT.

YOU show ME all the articles you've sold, sight-unseen to
editors since 1969.

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

"Dave Dilemma," control-freak. It has a name! :-)

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

There's been one recently. I made a Reply to Comments supporting
him and adding to what he said. Go look it up. To make it easy
on you, old grouchy man of no mountain, you will not have to look
back far on WT Docket 05-235.

I've made no attempt at controlling your posting, Len.

Untrue. Constant heckling of any NCTA that you do is a form
of control.

It is a rather weak control and yours just doesn't work.

Now what are you going to do?

Repeating the same tired, trite personal insults against
others is a FAILURE. Don't you realize that?

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.

Done long ago. That's how I got my invitation to submit
manuscripts.

Maybe you could include your reply to the comments of Mr. Rightsell.

Whatever for?!?

What is with your "thing" about Rightsell? Is he your bosom
buddie? A boy-friend?

You haven't said dink about my OTHER Replies to Comments.

I've been here for a long time, posting from three different countries,
Leonard.

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

Super Chicken? Who the hell is Super Chicken?

A cartoon character. On TV and with some cinema as short
subjects.

You probably didn't see that cartoon series in all those
"different countries." :-)

Tsk, you've not taken enough time to ENJOY things... :-)

Of course, being such a "comic," you might be annoyed by
other comedy. shrug

No doubt you draw a blank on "Snidely Whiplash," "Tom Slick
(and the Thunderbolt Grease-slapper)", "Gertie Growler,"
"Boris and Natasha," "Fearless Leader," "Way-Back Machine",
many others. Funny stuff. Hanna-Barbera did well.

But, I digress. This is supposed to be "all about amateur
radio!" That's why we readers are all treated to talks
on Dudly's "USMC career facts" (not), "Foreign Service"
exploits, national politics, international politics,
religions, morals and ethics in daily/national life, and
a host of other things having nothing to do with RADIO.

Let's all get uptight and rigid on radiotelegraphy to
satisfy all the self-important morsemen in here!

Hooo-RAAWWWWW!!

Temper fry.