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:

The "new point" allegedly against the NPRM was raised repeatedly:


Who wrote that, Len? You write as if it's a direct quote.

Tsk, tsk, tsk. Jimmie seems fearful of exposure of something.
Guilty conscience? :-)

No.

Who wrote:

"Morse code skill is necessary to defeat terrorists and save
lives in hurricanes [Katrina]!"

in their comments to FCC?

It wasn't me.

You write it as a direct quote, and you claim to have read all the
comments.
So it should be easy for you to name the author(s).

Had Jimmie gone INTO the ECFS filings on WT Docket 05-235, he
would have SEEN THAT repeated many times.

Show us, Len.

Bill, the pro-coders are mighty macho motivated morsemen and
pillars of the amateur community (by their own statements).
They ARE the "public" the FCC is supposed to support! :-)

Len, do you think phrases like "mighty macho morsemen" help
convince the FCC to see things your way?

Tsk. Self-appointed "Superior [Moot] Court Judge" Miccolis
thinks this newsgroup is some sort of "communication with the
FCC?!?" Jimmie, you are terribly confused about reality.

Now you just relax, take some deep breaths, and go to the
FCC ECFS and search for my name. [it is very easy given the
software tools provided by the FCC...even morsemen can
usually understand it] Look at any of my filings before the
Commission. Examine them closely. Do you see any phrasing
of mine using "mighty macho morsemen?" No?

No. But there are similar things that make you look like a complete
jackass.

Well, then,
WHY do you think I stated that to the Commission?

I don't. I was asking a question.

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.

Absolutely false, Len. Not one word of truth to it. You are mistaken,
wrong,
in error. Your denial is more of your typical jackass behavior.

Everyone realizes it.

Actually, no one but you "realizes it".

Why not admit that it is so?

Because it's not true.

The Amateur Extra class license required both a Morse Code test *and* a
written test that many who passed both consider harder than the old
First Phone. Morse Code skill alone wouldn't get anyone an Extra.

Prove that the "old First Phone" examination was "less hard"
than the Amateur Extra exam.

Why? I'm not making the claim - those who took both written exams
made it. Ask them.

You never completed that last
test element on your alleged Commercial radio operator license
and could only get a SECOND class.

So? You never completed *any* amateur radio test element.

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.

You apparently don't know that, because you 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.""

Do you think nobody will use Morse Code when the test is gone?

Irrelevant. NPRM 05-143 is solely about the morse code TEST.

Then it won't bother you abit if Morse Code use *increases* after the
test is gone.

They demand holding fast to the
status quo lest they lose THEIR self-esteem.

Gee, Len, you go on about others' motivations but say nothing about
your own.

Tsk, tsk, you are trying the old, tired trick of Dudly the
Imposter, attempting to misdirect the subject into some
nebulous "personal" fault.

No, I'm pointing out your double standard. Or rather, one of your many
double standards.

There is *NO* Real Majority in the Docket.

Yes, there is. Try counting by commenters and not by total filings.

Already done that, Jimmie.

Then you didn't publish it in your results.

YOU did NOT. You are trying to
escape by accepting Speroni's biased website "tally" as "your
own.

Not at all.

I'm refusing to accept the procedural mistakes of *your* highly biased
and error-prone tally. Such as counting the comments and reply comments
of the same person as separate opinions.

You have NOT gone into the ECFS and real ALL the filings
there or done your own sorting.

Have you? How do we *know* you have? Your behavior here
indicates you have not, because you missed major points made
by various commenters.

All you do is blindly believe
equally-biased pro-code "interpreters" such as Speroni and
then try to make out as if you did it.

The only bias is yours, Len.

The polarization of opinions is too strong, TOO CLOSE, for any
statistical validity FOR EITHER "SIDE" to "win."

Are you a statistician, Len? I think not.

You KNOW
this but are unwilling to admit it after your obvious-to-all
bias for code testing. Why do you persist in living a lie?

The "lie" is that you obfuscate your methods.

As of 2 PM EST, 16 November, there are 3,783 filings in Docket
05-235 up to and including 14 November 2005. At BEST, the
total number of filings represents only about 0.6 percent of
all licensed United States radio amateurs. That's only a
SAMPLING of the "amateur community" opinion.

I specifically wrote "majority of commenters".

Who cares what you "specifically" wrote?

Those who care about the facts rather than you windy, wordy,
blather.

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.

You made a mistake, Len old boy. Now you're trying to
insult your way out of it. Doesn't work.

Joe Speroni is an unabashed proponent of morse code use

That's a good thing.

So am I.

That's another good thing.

Joe Speroni is also a multiple-petitioner before the Commission
who has been DENIED by them each time.

So what?

Do you know what he wants in regard to Morse Code testing? What did his
comments say, Len?

Or don't you know?

Have YOU petitioned the
FCC for anything, Jimmie?

Don't you know?

Is there something wrong with Morse Code *use*?

No.

At last! Something we agree on!

But NPRM 05-143 is NOT about morse code *use*. :-)

Sure it is. If the rules changes affect Morse Code use, then
the proposal is about Morse Code use.

Eliminating the Morse Code test may reduce Morse Code use.
You'd like that, of course.

OTOH, there are reports that in some countries (Germany, Australia)
Morse Code interest and use have been *increasing* after the Morse
Code test was removed.

Wouldn't that be the ultimate paradox if the end result of eliminating
the
*test* for Morse Code increased its *use* by radio amateurs?

Try to stay focussed on what the NPRM actually said.

Try to stay focused on your spelling.

Are you fearfull that the Commission will take away your
little morse code sandbox on HF?

What "little morse code sandbox on HF", Len? There are no
Morse-Code-only subbands on HF. There should be, though.

No, just the facts. All there for you to check. Did you find any mistakes
that would change the results by even 1%?

No, Jimmie, Speroni's RESULTS are ALL THERE IS.

You can check them, though.

HE did all
the "interpreting" and some of that is WRONG

Where?

...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.

And how is that a mistake? What did she say about the Morse Code test -
is she for it, against it, or something else?

Besides, *you* are neither into amateur radio
nor desirous of obtaining a license, yet your commenting all over the
place.

What did Speroni DO about all those Comments of the 5 weeks
between the release of NPRM 05-143 and the Notice in the
Federal Register on 31 August 2005?

Included them in the tally. Why not?

Note the words of the
Notice in the Federal Register - the one that makes the
procedings legal - stating the OFFICIAL dates.

Do you *really* think the FCC will ignore the comments filed
before the OFFICIAL dates?

And if they *do* ignore those comments, and only take those
from the OFFICIAL comment period, what would the percentages
be - by *your* tally?

Or are you just ticked that someone else did a better analysis than you,
and had the skills to put it on a website for all to see?

HEHEHEHEHEHEHEHE. Tsk, tsk, Jimmie. "Skills?!?"

Yes. You don't even have a web page, even though AOL gives a free page
to each screen name. Even I have used the web pages supplied by AOL.

Money and
time to afford preaching the morse code gospel for years?

Website with a direct link to each comment. So anyone can easily check
AH0A's work.
You haven't shown a single case where his classification was unclear or
incorrect.

Long after EVERY OTHER radio service in the USA has dropped
morse code mode communications?

Who cares, Len? Morse code has *not* been dropped by Amateur radio.
Besides,
you said that "NPRM 05-143 is NOT about morse code *use*."

So what's your big problem with people promoting its *use*??

No, NOT "TICKED," Jimmie.

You sure seem to be. Almost all the time. Grumpy, yelling, flying off
the
handle, tantruming, acting like a tired two-year-old who won't go to
bed.

I put my time and effort into a
running account of numbers on the expressed opinions on NPRM
05-143 as seen on the ECFS public listings in WT DOCKET 05-235
and did it in THIS NEWSGROUP.

Do you want a merit badge and a pat on the head, Len? Seems like it.

Or maybe what you really want is for people to take your results as
fact and not question your methods. Nor point out your mistakes. You
get really nasty and upset when somebody points out your
mistakes.

I have no morse axe to grind
long after all the other radio services (except amateur radio)
have dropped it for communications. YOU DO.

YOU are TICKED, Jimmie.

You must refer to someone else.

You are ticked because the early
Commenters were eager to Comment FOR the NPRM by a 2:1 ratio
that went against the wishes of the pro-coders.

Commenters or comments?

Besides, those are from before the OFFICIAL comment period, right?
The ones you're afraid FCC will ignore?

What's the percentage from the OFFICIAL comment period?

Maybe the procode folks knew enough to wait for the notice in the
Federal Register.

Do you think that someone who files a comment and five reply comments,
all basically saying the same thing, should be counted as six separate
opinions? I don't.

Tsk, tsk. Then MAKE YOUR OPINION KNOWN to the Commission.

I'm asking *you*, Len. In this newsgroup. You're awfully ticked because
your bias and procedural errors have been exposed by me.

The Commission has established (long ago) the PROCEDURE of
Comments and Replies to Comments. Think of it as a "hearing."
It is NOT a "court."

So you think it's OK for you to lie and conceal. OK.

It is NOT some "election" and counting
of "votes."

The why did you count them as if they were?

The Commission takes in all of those filings
and studies them, then reaches a decision based on what the
Commission thinks is "good for the PUBLIC."

Which includes me, Len.

The PUBLIC, Jimmie,
not some vociferous pro-coder extras who think they are
"better" than others by virtue of their radiotelegraphy skill.

How about a vociferous anticode nonamateur who thinks he is
"better" than others by virtue of his lack of radiotelegraphy skill?

You already have a model filing in the ECFS showing "how to
do it." Look in the ECFS under filings on WT Docket 98-143
on date of 25 Januarly 1999 for Steven James Robeson.

You mean the one where Steve told the FCC not to pay attention to you?
That was good advice.

Remember also that the LAST day of OFFICIAL filings on
98-143 was 15 January 1999.

Remember that you barely made that deadline, and had to use US mail
to do it. So your only commentary on 98-143 wasn't visible for comment
by others until after January 15.

Try not to be as late as this
Robeson person...and try to avoid his Klu Klux Klan style of
trying to strip a citizen's rights guaranteed under our
First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Now you're just acting like a complete, perfect, state of the art
jackass, Len.

There is nothing in Steve's comments that tries "to strip a citizen's
rights
guaranteed under our First Amendment of the United States
Constitution."

There's *NO* Real Majority in Docket 05-235. It is just a
very close, half-and-half mix of opinions.

Nope. There's two clear majorities of opinion, as expressed by the
tally of commenters: Dump Element 1 for General and keep it for Extra.

Tsk, tsk, tsk, Jimmie. YOU are an Extra.

That's a good thing.

YOU love morse code.

That's another good thing.

YOU are seeing what YOU WANT TO SEE.

That's not true.

I am seeing what's there.

Consensus isn't a majority. It's a lot more. I don't think you know what
a consensus really is, Len.

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?!?"

I don't know who those folks are.

But I am telling you that you don't know what certain words mean. If
you can't take correction, then you're not a very good author or
editor.

So be it. That the IARU was already for tossing out S25.5
before WRC-03 isn't considered by pro-coders. CHANGE is
NOT allowed to status-quo-ists. shrug

Like those who oppose changes in nearby real estate?

NPRM 05-143 has NOTHING to do with real estate.

But you do. You opposed letting the owners of real estate
near your house make zoning changes. You tried to keep
the status quo, so that others could not do what they wanted
with their own property. You failed in that attempt.

The FCC
does NOT regulate real estate; such is left to local
state and county governments.

And you failed in your attempt to stop change there.

Are you deficient in basic
government of the United States?

No. Are you deficient in analogies?

I'd say it's a toss-up on time. 05-235 has nearly twice as
many filings as 98-143.

So what's your guess for The Pool, Len?

Irrelevant.

I'll put you down for "no clue".

FCC made it clear they see no reason to change the privileges of
any license class.

Then WHY are you so concerned?

You don't understand what the NPRM proposes, Len.

Their proposal is to dump Element 1, which will
mean that any noncodetested Tech will need to get a General to get
*any* HF/MF privileges.

Tsk, tsk, do you also try to teach your grandmother how to
suck eggs?

What does it mean to "suck eggs", Len? Does it mean to act like you?

I'm well aware of NPRM 05-143 and what it said as of 21 July
2005. Do you need a copy? It's on the ECFS, pre-dated,
under 15 July 2005. It has the time-stamp of when it was
received by ECFS, different from its Search Results filing
date.

Does a Report and Order conform EXACTLY to what a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking says? At ANY time at the Commission?
I've not seen ANY and that includes MANY different
procedings, not just on the amateur radio service regulations.
Would you point out which R&O was EXACTLY like its NPRM?
That would reinforce your contention and your alleged
prescience.

What the heck are you blabbering about?

The NPRM does not propose to give noncodetested Technicians any HF
privileges at
all.

What WILL happen on a very close race is that about half will
be totally ****ed off because they didn't get things their
way...and about half will feel victorious as "winners."

Will you ever stop being ticked off, Len?

Why do you say I am "ticked off?"

Your behavior.

We don't have any ticking device at the southern house. There's
one at the northern house in Washington but that mechanical
clock is seldom used, either by us (when we are there) or our
house-sitter/occupant.

Jimmie, I say YOU are the one "ticked off." You try to be
an all-knowing guru of amateur radio in here, holding fast
to the status quo (and the status-rank you achieved under
old regulations).

You mean like the status quo of real estate zoning in Sun City?

CHANGE seems to be anathema to you.

You mean like changing the real estate zoning in Sun City?

I'm not against change at all, Len - *IF* that change is for
a good reason.

You
keep bringing up the past, the past before your existance,
as if you had been there.

So what? You do the same thing. In fact, you talk about the past
and present of amateur radio as if you were/are there - but you're
not.

You do not look to the future.

Sure I do. My vision of the future is different than yours.

You do not think of newcomers in any way except to go through
the same motions as you had to. Your only interest seems to
be triumphing all extras (you are one) as the ultimate all.
Of course you hate CHANGE. It will destroy your self-esteem,
your bragging rights. That must REALLY tick you off!

That's just your typical blather to avoid the facts.

the future. From what I've seen of past Dockets and resulting
R&Os, the Commission does a thorough job of decision
justifications, not just on amateur radio but on all services.

Like they did on BPL?

Access BPL, Jimmie. NPRM 05-143 has NOTHING to do with Access
BPL.

You have NOT looked at the latest regulations in Part 15, have
you? I thought not. View those. Also, remember one thing:
The FCC was NOT ABLE TO PROHIBIT any Broadband over Power Lines
OTHER than place limits on its incidental RF radiation.

And they could have made the rules such that Access BPL wouldn't be a
viable system. But they didn't.

Those that didn't get what they want will bitch and moan and
make nasty but that's only "sore-loser-ism" on their part.

You mean like in your reply comments?

Tsk, tsk, tsk...there you go again, taking things out of
context and trying to misdirect discussion.

You're a sore loser, Len. In fact, you're even a sore winner.

YOU are NOT any "judge" of who can say what on any procedings
and dockets at the FCC.

Neither are you, though you try to be.

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.

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:

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.

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

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. If you had it, I doubt that you could
recount it honestly. Your tale is still full of holes.

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.

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.

What were you attempting by posing your question to Jim? Were you being
a snotty little kid, trying to turn the tables?

That
makes YOU look dumb.

I thought it was pretty dumb when you pulled it.

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.

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

Like Jim, I've also known Extra Class Amateur ticket holders who also
passed the First Phone. I've had some tell me that the Extra was
tougher. I've had others tell me that they were comparable. After all,
obtaining a First Phone wasn't rocket science.


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.

It was most assuredly an answer. Passing a f i v e w o r d p e r
m i n u t e morse exam is not at all like passing a 20 wpm exam.
The 5 wpm test is the same as the one which was given to Novice Class
examinees. It is slow enough that one could pass by counting dits and
dahs.

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.

That's in the regulations, not in
your stupid little s l o w w o r d s .

My slow words were much bigger than the fast words.


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. :-)

Neither of my sentences referred to doing anything. :-) :-)

Naturally YOU will object.

Naturally. I usually object to a false premise.

You consider yourself SUPERIOR
in many ways, aptly demonstrated in here.

When it comes to amateur radio, Len, I am superior to you. I have an
amateur radio license. You do not. I passed all the exams which were
available. You did not. I have 42 years of experience as a radio
amateur. You do not.

I'll hold my
truths because they are SELF EVIDENT to any reader. :-)

You should know when to hold 'em and know when to fold 'em. I'm a
reader here.

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.

Amateur Radio: You ain't done it.


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. :-)

I may take option three: Counter your ridiculous statements right here
in this venue.

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!

You've not sat on anyone, Len. That's simply another of your Walter
Mitty episodes coming on.


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.

I'll go with my arrogant, superior attitude over your arrogant, superior
attitude any time. After all, you're in my playground, Len. This isn't
alt.glory.retired.engineer.

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

Was there supposed to be a sentence in there somewhere? :-) :-)

I don't need to "squirm."

....but you do so.

I don't need Preparation H.

There is a subject open to debate.

All my
piles are on the other side of the screen, thankfully. :-)

I think you'd better check your shoes. You might be standing in some. :-)


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.

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.

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

That isn't amateur radio.

a professional in radio since HF communications beginning in 1953...

That isn't amateur radio.


...a holder of a top Commercial license since 1956 as well as
broadcasting work in 1956.

That isn't amateur radio.

From the end of
1956 I've been in electronics-radio of the aerospace industry.

That isn't amateur radio.

I've been in partnership in a small business that required
a commercial radio station license.

That isn't amateur radio.

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.

There has been a code-free amateur license available to you since 1991.
You have not even attempted to pass an exam for that license. Your
most recent statement here claims that you do not desire an amateur
radio license. Would you like to see it?

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

So? You don't have an amateur radio license. What percentage of
non-licensees in the amateur radio service made comments or replies?
It'd be a helluva lot smaller than the percentage of licensees who
commented. What's your point?

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.

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


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.

I've made no attempt at controlling your posting, Len. In fact, I've
never told you to go away or to shut up. You've done both. You aren't
very honest with yourself.

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.

There is no supporting evidence for your ludicrous claim.

Heil, I've sold enough work through my work (without meeting
editors face-to-face) to warrent them paying me for my work.

You've sold work through your work?. The word is "warrant".

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. Maybe you could include your reply to the
comments of Mr. Rightsell. Perhaps you could include a few archived
posts from r.r.a.p.

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.

You'd better get on those r.r.a.p. no load typesetters. See above.
Did you find your errors and have you reported them to the r.r.a.p. editors?

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...

I don't think anyone here would stand for paying to read your output 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're back to being Walter Mitty. Gotta love Thurber.

You've been punctured and wounded many times in here, Heil.

I've been here for a long time, posting from three different countries,
Leonard. I'd have certainly known if I'd been punctured or wounded.
You overestimate your abilities.

I can't help that.

I sincerely believe that you write many things here, Leonard, over which
you have absolutely no control.

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

Super Chicken? Who the hell is Super Chicken?

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.

Verbal butt? Oh, stop, Len! You're cracking my "message knuckles".

If you
want to remain deep fat fried and get overcooked, you have
only yourself to blame. I enjoy cooking.

It looks like you're currently doing a slow burn.

Dave K8MN

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.

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:

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.

Big holes, Len.

Before Restructuring took effect in 2000, the Extra code test
rate was 20 WPM.

Unless a medical waiver was obtained, in which case the Extra
could be had for a code test of as little as 5 wpm.

The "modern" Extra class license was added in the 1951 restructuring
that
also added the Novice and Technician class licenses. The code test
speed
for the Extra was set at 20 wpm at that time.

Why? Because the older-timers influencing
the NAAR lobbyists thought they were hot snit for amateur
radio because so many had been professional telegraphers.

No, that's not true at all.

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.

What about the thousands of others - like myself - who earned the
license because we wanted the privileges? In my case, that was
in 1970, at the age of 16.

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.

Where?

Back then those test elements were only given by FCC examiners. They
were not legally available to folks like you (outside of FCC). In fact,
back then
FCC required 2 years' experience as a General or higher license just to
*try*
the Extra test.

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.

But you don't really know because you didn't take both. Some of those
who *did*
take both say the Extra written was "harder".

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 .

Yet you denied it earlier.

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.

I took a look at those comments. The teacher is clearly in support of
continued Morse Code testing. So there is nothing "WRONG" with
the classification in the Speroni count.

How would *you* classify the English Teacher's comment, Len?

btw, that English Teacher is a member of the public expressing an
opinion to the FCC. First Amendment and all that.

Hmmmmm. Don't you fit right into that particular category, Len?

Obviously NOT, Heil.

Yes, you do, Len. You're neither into amateur radio
nor desirous of obtaining a license.

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.

So what? The teacher's comments are clearly pro-morse-code-test.
That's what counts for purpose of the tally.

Heil, I've sold enough work through my work (without meeting
editors face-to-face) to warrent them paying me for my work.

"warrant".

I've done the same, Len. No big deal.

wrote:
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).

Snidely Whiplash is a character from American literature?

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.

Please quote the part stating that 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.

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.

I thought I just explained this. I was licensed in 1963. The Extra
Class license was available in that year (and in subsequent years
leading up to Incentive Licensing) but no additional privileges were
attached. One could obtain the very same privileges with a General
Class ticket. You claim that former professional telegraphers lobbied
to have the Extra Class created so they'd have a "free set of
perquisites". That claim doesn't hold water. To obtain the Extra Class
license, one had to pass a more difficult written exam as well as
passing a more difficult morse exam. More privileges were granted after
Incentive Licensing was phased in over a two-year period. The FCC
implemented Incentive Licensing. Are you familiar with the word
"incentive"?

Wanna argue with U.S. government agencies? Go ahead. I ain't
them.

I'm well aware of that, though you seem to forget from time to time.

Call up Dubya and let him know about those "holes."
Maybe Rove and Libby can fill them...?

Why would they care about your wild fabrications?


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. :-)

He lives in Pennsylvania. He signs his posts "Jim N2EY". I live in
West Virginia. I sign my posts "Dave K8MN".

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.

How'd you manage to see the exam?

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

....and the First Phone is no longer offered. Your point?

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.

You keep plugging away and posting. There might be something from you
with which I find myself in agreement.

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.

Then why all the bafflegab about more EM spectrum, yada, yada, yada?

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?"

:-)

Irrelevant. :-)

About the slower 5 wpm code speed in place for today's Extra Class
license, Len wrote:

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 concede that you were almost right. Your claim about old time
operators lobbying for extra perks by dreaming up a higher speed code
exam is still bogus. No one ever obtained an Amateur Extra without
passing a more difficult written exam. I wrote that part. You didn't.
It looks like you've almost conceded that I was right. :-)

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

Courage isn't involved, Len. You initial claim was and is bogus.

My slow words were much bigger than the fast words.

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

Maybe if you didn't snip out the relevant portions, you'd be able to
follow along.

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

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

That hasn't been established. That depends what we're discussing. I
have far more HF radio operations experience than you, and at a far
earlier age. I likely know quite a bit more about antennas and HF
propagation than you. It is also likely that I have far more VHF/UHF
operations experience though I lack the experience in some exotic modes
you've mentioned. I have no doubt that you have the edge in electronics
theory.

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

Don't ever sell yourself short, Len. Your large r.r.a.p. body of work
is resplendent with examples.

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.

Irrelevant. That has nothing to do with amateur radio.

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

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

That isn't amateur 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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You act like a guy who is losing his grip, Len.

"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. :-)

Sorry, you have not. :-)


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]

In other words, you don't have an amateur radio license.

If I want to add an amateur radio license at some later time,
I will.

You might.

I may not want to later.

You're waffling again.

That is MY choice.

Partly. It would be seen as more possible for you if that dratted code
test were to be removed.

[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."

Mere semantics, Len. You aren't a radio amateur.


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!

Yep. That represents fourteen years of inertia for you.

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.

Consider it said.

I have the option to do so or not to do so. The Internet
does not require any amateur radio license.

Precisely. The internet is what you do. Watching TV is what you do.
Haunting an amateur radio newsgroup is what you do.

Of course you have the option to take an amateur radio license exam or
not. Passing one is another matter.

Only control-
freak bigots like yourself require amateur licenses to
participate.

Actually to participate in amateur radio, the FCC requires you to obtain
a license. I'll try harder in future to become less bigoted toward
control freaks.

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 are you doing about it? After all, you post here. Why don't you
tell us what can be done about such people, especially when they misuse
anonymous remailers. When they're bounced from one, they typically just
find another. Give us your professional advice.

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

Does this mean you support the filth mongers right to foul the
newsgroup? I'm sure you've written a lengthy position paper on the
matter. Let me have your ideas. Maybe I can come up with some useful
tactics based from your efforts in the area.

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've made some rather obvious errors. One of them appears to be a
deliberate effort to make it sound as if you'd written something
different.

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.

No it is neither pathetic nor weak. The person who writes of "the
control-freak wigging-out on English semantics, word structure, etc.,
ectc.!!!" seems rather pathetic and weak. What you offered initially
isn't what you later presented. The two statements are quite different
in key respects.

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

Quit making demands, Len.

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.

If you've done it, you can't have been very good at it. Quit making
demands.

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

Go look for them. There are a number of them. What role does this
"sight-unseen" stuff play?


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! :-)

There you go again. :-) :-)

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.

Heckling does not prevent you from posting. You cannot prevent jeers or
laughter. Your First Amendment rights permit your free speech. You are
not guaranteed a warm reception nor are you granted credibility.

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

It seems to eat at you.

Now what are you going to do?

I'm going to do as I please, Len.

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

Don't you? :-) :-) :-) :-)

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?!?

Why, you'd show them that you know how to do "STRONG formal commentary".

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

Maybe you forgot. He's the guy you attacked in reply comments.

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

No, I haven't.


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." :-)

No, I probably didn't.

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

I can visualize being asked, "would you like to have a meal out and
visit the art museum or would you rather hit the theater for the Super
Chicken film festival"?

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

I'm sure that Super Chicken is a real knee-slapper. Does he write his
own material?


Dave K8MN

wrote in message
oups.com...
wrote:

Before Restructuring took effect in 2000, the Extra
code test rate was 20 WPM.

Unless a medical waiver was obtained, in which case the
Extra could be had for a code test of as little as 5 wpm.

The "modern" Extra class license was added in the 1951
restructuring that also added the Novice and Technician
class licenses. The code test speed
for the Extra was set at 20 wpm at that time.

That's kinda funny. The "modern" Extra is, therefore,
54 years old. How long did the pre-modern Extra
exist before 1951. Or even better, how long did
radio as a practical medium exist before 1951.

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.

Where?
Back then those test elements were only given by FCC examiners.
They were not legally available to folks like you (outside of FCC).

The legality of the availability of actual test info has never been
proven either way. Bash made the info available and was never
challenged. The FCC let it all go by which isn't proof absolute
that it may or may not have been legal, but the absence of action
ultimately made it legal over the long haul.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

FCC & ARRL = Partners in the Culture of Corruption

From: "Bill Sohl" on Mon 21 Nov 2005 16:42


wrote in message
wrote:

Before Restructuring took effect in 2000, the Extra
code test rate was 20 WPM.

Unless a medical waiver was obtained, in which case the
Extra could be had for a code test of as little as 5 wpm.

The "modern" Extra class license was added in the 1951
restructuring that also added the Novice and Technician
class licenses. The code test speed
for the Extra was set at 20 wpm at that time.

That's kinda funny. The "modern" Extra is, therefore,
54 years old. How long did the pre-modern Extra
exist before 1951. Or even better, how long did
radio as a practical medium exist before 1951.

I wish these Extra Morsemen would get their stories
straight. Heil thinks the 1950s were ancient history
and won't accept it. :-)


Back then those test elements were only given by FCC examiners.
They were not legally available to folks like you (outside of FCC).

The legality of the availability of actual test info has never been
proven either way. Bash made the info available and was never
challenged. The FCC let it all go by which isn't proof absolute
that it may or may not have been legal, but the absence of action
ultimately made it legal over the long haul.

There were "Q&A" books on tests-and-answers for radio
and electricity back in the ancient history days of
the 1950s. Hardbound, not the best quality paper,
roughly the size of a Reader's Digest Condensed Book.

There was no hue and cry over those "Q&A" books then.
Gene Hubbel's "H and H Electronics" store in Rockford
Illinois had the amateur radio test editions for sale.
Both partners were pre-WW2 hams, Gene (SK) had W9ERU
then, later W7DI after moving to Arizona in retirement.
Gene was a morseman and had a couple certificates for
passing greater than 60 WPM using morse and a "mill."

Dick Bash and his schools came later. Why he got
bashed so harshly is still curious to me. It might
have been that his school/book logo had two four-
letter words in it? :-)

wrote in message
ups.com...
From: "Bill Sohl" on Mon 21 Nov 2005 16:42

Dick Bash and his schools came later. Why he got
bashed so harshly is still curious to me. It might
have been that his school/book logo had two four-
letter words in it? :-)



Dick Bash, truly a giant among men, a gentleman and
a scholar. He remains one of ham radio's greatest of
the great.