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.