Federal Register Watch Thread
N2...@aol.com
73 de Jim, N2EY
Ma...@kb9rqz.aprs
<LenAn...@ieee.org> wrote:
>
>hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> N2...@AOL.COM wrote:
>> > Nothing from FCC in today's Federal Register (Vol 72, Number 1)
>> >
>> > 73 de Jim, N2EY
>>
>> Maybe the FCC is like Robesin; says they're going to do something
>> legal, then doesn't.
>
> As of Noon eastern time on 4 Jan 07 there has been NO Federal
> Register published (on the Internet) since 29 Dec 06.
>
> Looks like the GPO has taken a vacation for the new year. :-)
thye like all crats often do
I do have this sad dream/nightmare that the dems fired all the old
staff and haven't filled the place with thier croonies to replaces
Hastards cronnies
>
> Many many federal agencies publish in the Federal Register.
>
> However, there just can't be any "number 1" FR for 2007 yet.
> If they didn't publish one then it doesn't exist. Miccolis seems
> to be reading a non-existant thing...not unusual for pro-coders
> it seems. :-)
>
maybe that is truly how morse gets through th e OOK heterodynes with
the radio (even if it is off) to generate a telepathic signal to other
Coders sitting near their receiever (on or not) to demotulat e the the
reply
I was simply not born with enough of the right section for this to
work
I am convinced the Cpoder were right:)
> [now watch his fitful agitation about that and "volumes" of
> accusatory postings saying "that's just simply wrong" or
> similar...sigh]
>
> LA
http://kb9rqz.blogspot.com/
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
N2...@aol.com
It's not the Report and Order, though.
--
The Federal Register can be viewed online at:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html
*Today's* edition of the Federal Register can be viewed online at:
http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/fr-cont.html
(HTML)
or
http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/fr-cont.pdf
(PDF)
Agencies are listed in alphabetic order, making it easy to find the
FCC.
73 de Jim, N2EY
an_old_friend
i wanto be wogers secwet lover!
Stefan Wolfe
<N2...@AOL.COM> wrote in message
news:1167950896.4...@42g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
> One item from FCC in today's Federal Register (Vol 72, Number 2)
>
> It's not the Report and Order, though.
NO NEED for a report and order on the fr.
Since the FC already publically announced the acceptance of no code, that
effectively permits anyone with a CSCE for general or technician class
element 2 CSCE or license to use HF SSB NOW in the permitted frequencies.
There is no statute that requires publication in the FR before a requirement
is effective, only that the regulating agency agree in principal to the new
requirement. Such a statute would obviously be unconstitutional. It is
merely a government formality which cannot be enforced by the courts.
The FCC did not publish an effective date nor did they choose to publish one
in the federal register. That means you can transmit SSB voice at this very
moment.
Go ahead element 2 or 3 CSCE'S or tech license holders, you can transmit
NOW! I look forward to seeing you on the bands (though I do spend a lot of
time in the CW portions).
Ma...@kb9rqz.aprs
wrote:
>
><N2...@AOL.COM> wrote in message
>news:1167950896.4...@42g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
>> One item from FCC in today's Federal Register (Vol 72, Number 2)
>>
>> It's not the Report and Order, though.
>
>NO NEED for a report and order on the fr.
>
>Since the FC already publically announced the acceptance of no code, that
>effectively permits anyone with a CSCE for general or technician class
>element 2 CSCE or license to use HF SSB NOW in the permitted frequencies.
no mere elelment 2 CSSE wopuld cover that the element 2 test gets you
a tech license the only people a new element 2 csse would affect would
be a novice and and there are damn few of them and fewer still that
are both alive active and still in radio
>
>There is no statute that requires publication in the FR before a requirement
>is effective, only that the regulating agency agree in principal to the new
>requirement. Such a statute would obviously be unconstitutional. It is
>merely a government formality which cannot be enforced by the courts.
I agree it would be difficult for the FCC to enforce the old rule and
prevent me from operating on 10m right now but Hams would do so most
likely
>
>The FCC did not publish an effective date nor did they choose to publish one
>in the federal register. That means you can transmit SSB voice at this very
>moment.
>
>Go ahead element 2 or 3 CSCE'S or tech license holders, you can transmit
>NOW! I look forward to seeing you on the bands (though I do spend a lot of
>time in the CW portions).
>
an old friend
an_old_friend wrote:
> N2...@AOL.COM wrote:
> > One item from FCC in today's Federal Register (Vol 72, Number 2)
> >
> >
> > 73 de Jim, N2EY
>
> i wanto be wogers secwet lover!
then do so woger
Stefan Wolfe
"Stefan Wolfe" <ste...@eml.com> wrote in message
news:459d9ca2$0$9595$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
Here is the text: The R&O is ALREADY adopted;
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Amendment of Part 97 of the Commission's Rules
To Implement WRC-03 Regulations Applicable to Requirements for
Operator Licenses in the Amateur Radio Service
Amendment of the Commission's Rules Governing the Amateur Radio
Services
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
WT Docket No. 05-235
RM-10781, RM-10782, RM-10783,
RM-10784, RM-10785, RM-10786,
RM-10787, RM-10805, RM-10806,
RM-10807, RM-10808, RM-10809,
RM-10810, RM-10811, RM-10867,
RM-10868, RM-10869, RM-10870
WT Docket No. 04-140
REPORT AND ORDER AND ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION
-------------> Adopted<------------------- : December 15, 2006 Released:
December 19, 2006
By the Commission:
And,
Generally, the NPRM proposed to eliminate the requirement that an individual
must pass an international Morse code telegraphy examination in order to
qualify for any amateur radio operator license.
As discussed below, ----------------->this R&O implements<------------------
the proposals set forth in the NPRM. Specifically, we will amend our Amateur
Radio Service rules by:
. revising the examination requirements for obtaining a General Class or
Amateur Extra Class amateur radio operator license; and
. revising the operating privileges for Technician Class licensees to
include the operating privileges that are authorized to Novice Class
licensees.
So go ahead and transmit!
Ma...@kb9rqz.aprs
wrote:
>
now tha line is better example
robert casey
>
> NO NEED for a report and order on the fr.
>
> Since the FC already publically announced the acceptance of no code, that
> effectively permits anyone with a CSCE for general or technician class
> element 2 CSCE or license to use HF SSB NOW in the permitted frequencies.
>
> There is no statute that requires publication in the FR before a requirement
> is effective, only that the regulating agency agree in principal to the new
> requirement. Such a statute would obviously be unconstitutional. It is
> merely a government formality which cannot be enforced by the courts.
>
I doubt it. Until it shows in the Federal Registry, the old rules are
still in force. And then the old rules stay alive until 30 days elapses.
Besides, if all someone has are CSCEs, they don't even have a callsign,
so how could they operate?
Dee Flint
"robert casey" <wa2...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:gUinh.7379$yx6....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
And those CSCEs will NOT be accepted for processing for the upgrade until
the effective date listed in the Federal Register. So if the CSCE expires
before that effective date, they will have to retest.
Dee, N8UZE
Stefan Wolfe
"Dee Flint" <deefl...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:DZKdnaNWAek1IQDY...@comcast.com...
Perhaps but a license upgrade on paper is an administrative exercise subject
to the administrivia that you mention. In this case the bureaucracy may not
(yet)properly reflect the law..
On the other hand, the legality is defined by the adoption and release dates
of the Report and Order that adopts the NPRM. The R&O was released on Dec.
19 but was actually effective on the adoption date of Dec. 15 2006.
Legally, Part 97 does not state that you must be a general class or
technician etc. to transmit on certain bands. It merely states that one must
pass element 2 to transmit SSB on 10m segmets, element 3 to transmit SSB on
other segments etc.
The license itself only reflects what the law requires (this may be an
exception as you point out). The law governs who may transmit where and what
element credits must be obtained before doing so.
However, actual statute law trumps bureaucracy. The Federal Register merely
records laws that have already been enacted. The Constitution was in effect
prior to the existence of a FR and nowhere is the FR mentioned in today's
constitution.
Dave
> <N2...@AOL.COM> wrote in message
> news:1167950896.4...@42g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
>
>>One item from FCC in today's Federal Register (Vol 72, Number 2)
>>
>>It's not the Report and Order, though.
>
>
> NO NEED for a report and order on the fr.
>
> Since the FC already publically announced the acceptance of no code, that
> effectively permits anyone with a CSCE for general or technician class
> element 2 CSCE or license to use HF SSB NOW in the permitted frequencies.
>
SNIPPED
100% WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!
Any law or regulation in the USA becomes effective ONLY after it is PROMULGATED!!
For laws and regulations at the Federal Level that PROMULGATION only occurs in
the Federal Register.
Operate prior to that date at your peril.
/s/ DD, W1MCE
N2...@aol.com
Which means the new rules will not go into effect before February 4,
2007.
--
The Federal Register can be viewed online at:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html
The most recent edition of the Federal Register can be viewed online
Dee Flint
<N2...@AOL.COM> wrote in message
news:1168036111.7...@11g2000cwr.googlegroups.com...
> Nothing from FCC in today's Federal Register (Vol 72, Number 3).
>
> Which means the new rules will not go into effect before February 4,
> 2007.
>
> --
Actually I don't think they publish on the week ends so that pushes it out
at least two additional days for the earliest effectivity date.
Dee, N8UZE
Marty
40. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Part 97 of the Commission's Rules IS AMENDED
specified in Appendix A, effective [30 days after publication in the Federal
Register].
Nate Bargmann
Don't feed the troll...
Don't feed the troll...
ARRRRGHHHHH!!!!
Laws are only words on paper unless we as humans choose to abide by them.
Enforcement occurs when those that choose to live by the laws get tired of
and out number those that don't.
In the mean time, it isn't going to kill anyone to wait the next six to
eight weeks before the implementation date. BTW, it didn't kill me to wait
until 11:01 PM CST December 14, 2006 to operate on the expanded 80m Extra
phone band.
73, de Nate >>
--
"The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds,
the pessimist fears this is true."
Jeffrey Herman
>Legally, Part 97 does not state that you must be a general class or
>technician etc. to transmit on certain bands.
See Section 97.301. Then see below:
0 2 4 6 8 10
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
TROLL-O-METER
No 73 for you,
Jeff KH6O
--
N2...@aol.com
7, 2007.
73 de Jim, N2EY
Nate Bargmann
> 0 2 4 6 8 10
> /
> /
> /
> /
> /
> /
> /
> /
> TROLL-O-METER
>
> No 73 for you,
> Jeff KH6O
Shouldn't that show S9 +60db?
;-)
- Nate >>
Dave
"Nate Bargmann" <n0nb.DO....@ME.networksplus.net> wrote in message
news:obCdnUqKK4uvOALY...@bluevalley.net...
> On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 06:15:36 +0000, Jeffrey Herman wrote:
>
>> 0 2 4 6 8 10
>> /
>> /
>> /
>> /
>> /
>> /
>> /
>> /
>> TROLL-O-METER
>>
>> No 73 for you,
>> Jeff KH6O
>
> Shouldn't that show S9 +60db?
more like 60 pounds gud buddy!
N2...@aol.com
neither is the Report and Order.
Which means the new rules will not go into effect before February 9,
2007.
The two items are dated December 26 and December 27, 2006.
Dee Flint
<N2...@AOL.COM> wrote in message
news:1168297705.3...@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Two items from FCC in today's Federal Register (Vol 72, Number 4), but
> neither is the Report and Order.
>
> Which means the new rules will not go into effect before February 9,
> 2007.
>
> The two items are dated December 26 and December 27, 2006.
>
> --
>
Don't forget that January has 31 days. So if it is published tomorrow
(January 9), the normal 30 days means it could go into effect on February
8th.
Dee, N8UZE
Ma...@kb9rqz.aprs
good of you to ntoice that DEE I did not bother as Jim does not accept
correction for any NoCoder and what the hey it is just another to you
guys that are not affected in the least by the coming change
Jeff
"> However, actual statute law trumps bureaucracy. The Federal Register
merely
> records laws that have already been enacted. The Constitution was in
> effect prior to the existence of a FR and nowhere is the FR mentioned in
> today's constitution.
True, but is there some other piece of Statute Law that states that
legislation cannot come into force until it has been promulgated in the
Federal Register?
Jeff
N2...@aol.com
Nothing from FCC in today's Federal Register (Vol 72, Number 5).
N2...@aol.com
No - but there doesn't have to be.
The basic problem is that some folks either didn't read or didn't
understand
the test of the Report and Order.
FCC 06-178
can be downloaded from:
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-178A1.pdf
in PDF
On Sheet 17 (of 41) it says:
"VI. ORDERING CLAUSES
.......
40. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Part 97 of the Commission's Rules IS
AMENDED as specified in Appendix A, effective [30 days after
publication in the
Federal Register]."
There's no need of any external law tying FCC action to the Federal
Register, because
the FCC did that as part of the R&O itself, rather than specifying an
effective date.
AFAIK, it's done this way to avoid conflicts. The R&O is effectively
"out there" for anyone to
look at, but if there were some sort of conflict with another govt.
agency, etc., or a mistake in the R&O, FCC could take action before
the effective date, and/or hold up implementation by not
publishing. That's extremely doubtful in this case - the delay in
getting the R&O published
is almost certainly simple bureaucratic procedure.
Not all FCC actions go through that procedure. Emergency declarations
are one example - they're usually effective immediately.
Sooner or later all the wheels will turn!
73 de Jim, N2EY
Stefan Wolfe
"Jeff" <je...@local.host> wrote in message
news:45a362a4$0$1609$834e...@reader.greatnowhere.com...
Yes, and as it was pointed out to me, it can (and probably is usually true)
that the effectivity can be conditional on the FR publication if this is
stated in the body of the law, as it was. I continue to be amazed at our
system of laws; legislators make laws without knowing when they will
actually become effective. The actual effectivity dates are delegated to
non-elected bureaucrats who publish a paper. I cannot imagine that some laws
whose effectivity dates can mean the accumulation (or loss) of wealth for
each day publication is delayed or speeded up could have not a corruptive
effect on these nameless people.
A war could be declared but not be put into effect until 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register.
Cecil Moore
> legislators make laws without knowing when they will
> actually become effective.
Heck, legislators often make ineffective laws.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com
Ma...@kb9rqz.aprs
wrote:
>
OTOH the army is smart enough to fight it and do the paperwork later
Ma...@kb9rqz.aprs
wrote:
>Stefan Wolfe wrote:
>> legislators make laws without knowing when they will
>> actually become effective.
>
>Heck, legislators often make ineffective laws.
not often generaly make ineffective laws
N2...@aol.com
Number 6). None of them are the Report and Order.
Dave
> Stefan Wolfe wrote:
>
>> legislators make laws without knowing when they will actually become
>> effective.
>
>
> Heck, legislators often make ineffective laws.
We now have a USA Congress that was elected on an anti-Iraq war platform.
Yesterday the key Democrats made the evening news in stating that they won't
vote to cut off $$$ for the war. But, they will provide a non-binding resolution
that the 'Sense of Congress' disapproves of the war. Heck, we knew that before
the fools got sworn in!
If you're against the war, vote against paying for the war!! [become responsible
... not a wishy washy dish-rag!] AKA Put up or shut up!
/s/ DD, W1MCE
Dave
"It is further ordered That Part 97 of the Commission's rules IS AMENDED as
specified in Appendix A, effective [30 Days after publication in the Federal
Register]."
So, watch the FR.
Stefan Wolfe
<N2...@AOL.COM> wrote in message
news:1168391108.9...@77g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
t some folks either didn't read or didn't
> understand
> the test of the Report and Order.
>
understand the test of the Report and Order. :-))
Stefan Wolfe
<N2...@AOL.COM> wrote in message
news:1168431757.6...@p59g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
> There are seven (7) items from FCC in today's Federal Register (Vol 72,
> Number 6). None of them are the Report and Order.
This appears to be a conspiracy. We find that the person or persons at the
FR who are holding this up are actually old tyme 20wpm extras who have found
a way to foil NCI :-))
an_old_friend
you are very likely right since the FCC has been dragging its heels on
this issue for 30 years I am sure what we are seeing is someon withi
the Fcc dragging out a bit longer
no I am not kidding
N2...@aol.com
N2...@aol.com
Since the Register is not published on weekends or holidays, the next
one won't appear until Tuesday, January 16.
Carl R. Stevenson
<N2...@AOL.COM> wrote in message
news:1168391108.9...@77g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
> The basic problem is that some folks either didn't read or didn't
> understand the test of the Report and Order.
I believe Jim meant "text" not "test" above - an easy typo to make.
>
> FCC 06-178
>
> can be downloaded from:
>
> http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-178A1.pdf
>
> in PDF
>
> On Sheet 17 (of 41) it says:
>
> "VI. ORDERING CLAUSES
>
> .......
>
> 40. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Part 97 of the Commission's Rules IS
> AMENDED as specified in Appendix A, effective [30 days after
> publication in the
> Federal Register]."
>
> There's no need of any external law tying FCC action to the Federal
> Register, because
> the FCC did that as part of the R&O itself, rather than specifying an
> effective date.
There is an "external law" which ties all federal agency rulemakings to the
Federal Register.
It's called the Administrative Procedures Act and it's Title 5 USC, Chapter
5, sections 511-599.
The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) is the law under which some 55 U.S.
government federal regulatory agencies like the FDA and EPA (and FCC)
create the rules and regulations necessary to implement and enforce major
legislative acts such as the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act, Clean Air Act or
Occupational Health and Safety Act (and the Communications Act, as
ammended).
>
> AFAIK, it's done this way to avoid conflicts. The R&O is effectively
> "out there" for anyone to
> look at, but if there were some sort of conflict with another govt.
> agency, etc., or a mistake in the R&O, FCC could take action before
> the effective date, and/or hold up implementation by not
> publishing. That's extremely doubtful in this case - the delay in
> getting the R&O published
> is almost certainly simple bureaucratic procedure.
I'm sure that the delay (not abnormal at all) in publishing in the FR is
just that - the bureaucracy.
> Not all FCC actions go through that procedure. Emergency declarations
> are one example - they're usually effective immediately.
True - but the APA requires that there be very good reasons for not giving
the citizenry due and reasonable notice before new regulations take effect.
> Sooner or later all the wheels will turn!
Agreed ...
73,
Carl - wk3c
an_old_friend
Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
> <N2...@AOL.COM> wrote in message
> news:1168391108.9...@77g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
> > The basic problem is that some folks either didn't read or didn't
> > understand the test of the Report and Order.
> > AFAIK, it's done this way to avoid conflicts. The R&O is effectively
> > "out there" for anyone to
> > look at, but if there were some sort of conflict with another govt.
> > agency, etc., or a mistake in the R&O, FCC could take action before
> > the effective date, and/or hold up implementation by not
> > publishing. That's extremely doubtful in this case - the delay in
> > getting the R&O published
> > is almost certainly simple bureaucratic procedure.
>
> I'm sure that the delay (not abnormal at all) in publishing in the FR is
> just that - the bureaucracy.
indeed it is normal I am just hoping that we will not soon start see
ProCode insisting well maybe trhey changed their mind
>
> > Not all FCC actions go through that procedure. Emergency declarations
> > are one example - they're usually effective immediately.
>
> True - but the APA requires that there be very good reasons for not giving
> the citizenry due and reasonable notice before new regulations take effect.
>
> > Sooner or later all the wheels will turn!
>
> Agreed ...
and they grind slowly and frankly they grind slower for me than you and
Jim , Carl I am one of the few people in point of fact diretly affected
by them
> 73,
> Carl - wk3c
U-Know-Who
"an_old_friend" <kons...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1168618974....@11g2000cwr.googlegroups.com...
Mark, I think they just don't want you on HF. What do you think?
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
N2...@aol.com
> <N2...@AOL.COM> wrote in message
> news:1168391108.9...@77g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
> > The basic problem is that some folks either didn't read or didn't
> > understand the test of the Report and Order.
>
> I believe Jim meant "text" not "test" above - an easy typo to make.
>
I did not know that! Thanks Carl!
It makes perfect sense that there would be legislation requiring the
publication of routine new rules in the Federal Register before they
become effective.
> > AFAIK, it's done this way to avoid conflicts. The R&O is effectively
> > "out there" for anyone to
> > look at, but if there were some sort of conflict with another govt.
> > agency, etc., or a mistake in the R&O, FCC could take action before
> > the effective date, and/or hold up implementation by not
> > publishing. That's extremely doubtful in this case - the delay in
> > getting the R&O published
> > is almost certainly simple bureaucratic procedure.
>
> I'm sure that the delay (not abnormal at all) in publishing in the FR is
> just that - the bureaucracy.
Agreed.
Also, after having made a couple of obvious typos and contradictions in
the "omnibus" R&O, FCC might be taking extra measures to be sure that
sort of thing isn't in this one.
> > Not all FCC actions go through that procedure. Emergency declarations
> > are one example - they're usually effective immediately.
>
> True - but the APA requires that there be very good reasons for not giving
> the citizenry due and reasonable notice before new regulations take effect.
Those emergency declarations are the exceptions that prove the rule
IMHO.
> > Sooner or later all the wheels will turn!
>
> Agreed ...
Next Tuesday at the soonest.
73 de Jim, N2EY
Stefan Wolfe
"Carl R. Stevenson" <wk3...@wk3c.com> wrote in message
news:jp-dnXUmScE...@ptd.net...
>
> <N2...@AOL.COM> wrote in message
> news:1168391108.9...@77g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
>> The basic problem is that some folks either didn't read or didn't
>> understand the test of the Report and Order.
>
> I believe Jim meant "text" not "test" above - an easy typo to make.
Resulting in an easy joke to make.
Couldn't resist.
Stefan Wolfe
<N2...@AOL.COM> wrote in message
news:1168645770....@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
>> <N2...@AOL.COM> wrote in message
>> news:1168391108.9...@77g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
>> > The basic problem is that some folks either didn't read or didn't
>> > understand the test of the Report and Order.
>>
>> I believe Jim meant "text" not "test" above - an easy typo to make.
>>
> Yep!
I think you meant "Yes". Another typo?
(hah hah)
Ma...@kb9rqz.org
wrote:
>
>"an_old_friend" <kons...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1168618974....@11g2000cwr.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
>> and they grind slowly and frankly they grind slower for me than you and
>> Jim , Carl I am one of the few people in point of fact diretly affected
>> by them
>
>Mark, I think they just don't want you on HF. What do you think?
Tom you may indeed be dumb enough to think that.
But I am sure the FCC does not know me from Adam as they say
N2...@aol.com
Ma...@kb9rqz.org
>Nothing from FCC in today's Federal Register (Vol 72, Number 9).
>
frankly it satrts to look like you are trying to gloat
N2...@aol.com
None of them are the awaited Report and Order
Ma...@kb9rqz.org
>Three items from FCC in today's Federal Register (Vol 72, Number 10).
>None of them are the awaited Report and Order
>
thread jacking now I see jim
bad ham
LenAn...@ieee.org
> On 16 Jan 2007 15:47:17 -0800, N2...@AOL.COM wrote:
>
> >Nothing from FCC in today's Federal Register (Vol 72, Number 9).
> >
>
> frankly it satrts to look like you are trying to gloat
No, Mark, it's just that Miccolis is so wrapped up in his knowitall
syndrome that he MUST supply "news" of FCC 06-178 AS IF he
were "in favor of it." Hardly that...Miccolis said more than once
that eliminating the code test is a BAD THING.
Tsk, tsk, he FAILED to supply such "news" for 18 Jan 07 ! ! !
[at least by 1:39 PM eastern time on 18 Jan 07]
Hmmm...let's see...the FCC themselves announced on 15 Dec 06
what it was going to do, assigned their number on the R&O,
published it...and the ARRL dutifully made a link to that (as
if only the ARRL "knew" or something).
Beats me why Miccolis isn't working up in Newington for the ARRL.
Come to think of it, that isn't unusual..."Scoop" Miccolis has
always
claimed "inside info" on just about anything. :-)
Miccolis is the EXPERT on the US military...despite NEVER having
been IN any military service himself...or even IN any part of US
government service. He goes the transgender route, putting on his
Nun of the Above habit and tries to ruler-spank those of us who were
IN US military service because we DARED speak against morse
code testing! Now Jimmie once made a BIG thing about "not
knowing a subject" such as the glory and majesty of morsemanship
because some of us have never used it...but then he hypocritcally
wanted to spank other veterans about their conduct towards
morsemen veterans who wanted to keep code testing forever and
ever. Miccolis isn't hard to understand, really, he KNOWS What
Is Good For (HIS version of) Amateur Radio. He isn't hesitant to
tell everyone who doesn't think like he does that they are
"mistaken," or "plain and simply wrong." It's hard to reply to an
ego that large.
LA
Ma...@kb9rqz.org
<LenAn...@ieee.org> wrote:
>Ma...@kb9rqz.org wrote:
>> On 16 Jan 2007 15:47:17 -0800, N2...@AOL.COM wrote:
>>
>> >Nothing from FCC in today's Federal Register (Vol 72, Number 9).
>> >
>>
>> frankly it satrts to look like you are trying to gloat
>
> No, Mark, it's just that Miccolis is so wrapped up in his knowitall
> syndrome that he MUST supply "news" of FCC 06-178 AS IF he
> were "in favor of it." Hardly that...Miccolis said more than once
> that eliminating the code test is a BAD THING.
you are right my mistake
N2...@aol.com
Neither of them is the awaited Report and Order
N2...@aol.com
> Ma...@kb9rqz.org wrote:
> > On 16 Jan 2007 15:47:17 -0800, N2...@AOL.COM wrote:
> > >Nothing from FCC in today's Federal Register (Vol 72, Number 9).
> > frankly it satrts to look like you are trying to gloat
Not gloating, just reporting.
> No, Mark, it's just that
> is so wrapped up in his knowitall
> syndrome that he MUST supply "news" of FCC 06-178 AS IF he
> were "in favor of it."
That's simply not true, Len.
I'm simply reporting what's going on with the Report and Order wrt its
publication in the Federal Register. Is that not allowed?
> Hardly that...
> said more than once
> that eliminating the code test is a BAD THING.
For once you got something right, Len! I do indeed think the
elimination
of the Morse Code test is a bad thing. But it's going to happen, 30
days
after FCC gets around to publishing it in the Federal Register.
> Tsk, tsk, he FAILED to supply such "news" for 18 Jan 07 ! ! !
>
> [at least by 1:39 PM eastern time on 18 Jan 07]
So what?
> Hmmm...let's see...the FCC themselves announced on 15 Dec 06
> what it was going to do, assigned their number on the R&O,
> published it...and the ARRL dutifully made a link to that (as
> if only the ARRL "knew" or something).
I think you're jealous that I and many others knew before you did.
> Beats me why
> isn't working up in Newington for the ARRL.
How do you know I'm not?
> Come to think of it, that isn't unusual..."Scoop"
> has always
> claimed "inside info" on just about anything. :-)
Give us an example, Len.
>
> is the EXPERT on the US military...
I don't claim to be an expert on anything, Len.
> despite NEVER having
> been IN any military service himself...or even IN any part of US
> government service.
Well, Len, you've never been a radio amateur, but you claim to
know all about amateur radio and what is best for it.
LenAn...@ieee.org
N2...@AOL.COM wrote:
> Two items from FCC are in today's Federal Register (Vol 72, Number 10).
> Neither of them is the awaited Report and Order
You are LATE, Scoop. Get with the program!
Your posting was done past 5 PM eastern time. Guvmint
agencies were already closed down!
:-)
LA
hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com
The FCC is LATE! Something is obviously up with the R&O. :-)
LenAn...@ieee.org
Maybe its due to the ARRL? They've always thought they RUN
US amateur radio. They don't but maybe their law firm filed
something to delay the whole thing? :-)
Could even be that sour grapes sipper at "World Radio!" Just
saw that and couldn't believe what he wrote...so LATE in the
non-decision game! :-)
Wow, don't those Mighty Macho Morsemen take themselves
SO seriously!
LA
Ma...@kb9rqz.org
indeed but the problem is FCC is still trying to curry some favor with
ARRL
Ma...@kb9rqz.org
>LenAn...@ieee.org wrote:
>> Ma...@kb9rqz.org wrote:
>> > On 16 Jan 2007 15:47:17 -0800, N2...@AOL.COM wrote:
>
>> > >Nothing from FCC in today's Federal Register (Vol 72, Number 9).
>
>> > frankly it satrts to look like you are trying to gloat
>
>Not gloating, just reporting.
frankly jim you don't get to decides what it looks like to me
hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com
LenAn...@ieee.org wrote:
> hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > LenAn...@ieee.org wrote:
> > > N2...@AOL.COM wrote:
> > > > Two items from FCC are in today's Federal Register (Vol 72, Number 10).
> > > > Neither of them is the awaited Report and Order
> > >
> > > You are LATE, Scoop. Get with the program!
> > >
> > > Your posting was done past 5 PM eastern time. Guvmint
> > > agencies were already closed down!
> > >
> > > :-)
> > >
> > > LA
> >
> > The FCC is LATE! Something is obviously up with the R&O. :-)
>
> Maybe its due to the ARRL? They've always thought they RUN
> US amateur radio. They don't but maybe their law firm filed
> something to delay the whole thing? :-)
Another law suit?
> Could even be that sour grapes sipper at "World Radio!" Just
> saw that and couldn't believe what he wrote...so LATE in the
> non-decision game! :-)
I like that magazine, and their monthly emcomm article is usually top
notch. But....
> Wow, don't those Mighty Macho Morsemen take themselves
> SO seriously!
>
> LA
They have to. No one else does. ;^)
hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com
Ma...@kb9rqz.org wrote:
> On 18 Jan 2007 14:38:00 -0800, hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >LenAn...@ieee.org wrote:
> >> N2...@AOL.COM wrote:
> >> > Two items from FCC are in today's Federal Register (Vol 72, Number 10).
> >> > Neither of them is the awaited Report and Order
> >>
> >> You are LATE, Scoop. Get with the program!
> >>
> >> Your posting was done past 5 PM eastern time. Guvmint
> >> agencies were already closed down!
> >>
> >> :-)
> >>
> >> LA
> >
> >The FCC is LATE! Something is obviously up with the R&O. :-)
>
> indeed but the problem is FCC is still trying to curry some favor with
> ARRL
Maybe the amateurs at the FCC are trying to keep their options open for
a second career after retiring from the FCC.
Ma...@kb9rqz.org
>
>LenAn...@ieee.org wrote:
>> hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> > LenAn...@ieee.org wrote:
>> > > N2...@AOL.COM wrote:
>> > > > Two items from FCC are in today's Federal Register (Vol 72, Number 10).
>> > > > Neither of them is the awaited Report and Order
>> > >
>> > > You are LATE, Scoop. Get with the program!
>> > >
>> > > Your posting was done past 5 PM eastern time. Guvmint
>> > > agencies were already closed down!
>> > >
>> > > :-)
>> > >
>> > > LA
>> >
>> > The FCC is LATE! Something is obviously up with the R&O. :-)
>>
>> Maybe its due to the ARRL? They've always thought they RUN
>> US amateur radio. They don't but maybe their law firm filed
>> something to delay the whole thing? :-)
>
>Another law suit?
possibly
>
>> Could even be that sour grapes sipper at "World Radio!" Just
>> saw that and couldn't believe what he wrote...so LATE in the
>> non-decision game! :-)
>
>I like that magazine, and their monthly emcomm article is usually top
>notch. But....
>
>> Wow, don't those Mighty Macho Morsemen take themselves
>> SO seriously!
>>
>> LA
>
>They have to. No one else does. ;^)
LOL
Ma...@kb9rqz.org
perhaps hard to know
or perhaps they are afraid to publish it till a death threat or 1000
are investagated ( I am assuming some hams sent in death threats after
the announcement
hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com
N2...@AOL.COM wrote:
> Well, Len, you've never been a radio amateur, but you claim to
> know all about amateur radio and what is best for it.
And that really, really gets to you, doesn't it?
N2...@aol.com
It's not the awaited Report and Order
Stefan Wolfe
<N2...@AOL.COM> wrote in message
news:1169206482.0...@51g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
> One item from FCC are in today's Federal Register (Vol 72, Number 12).
> It's not the awaited Report and Order
Get it now?
This is how they keep the Morse filter in place while pleasing the activist
no-code subset of ARRL membership.
The FCC and ARRL have done everything they can. You can't complain to them
anymore. They have done their job.
But now you will have to figure out who publishes the FR and, in doing so,
discover that no mere mortal has the power to escalate their editorial
policy and the FR can take forever to publish this if they so desire. There
is no law that says they must publish anything. at any certain time.
Gordon West and ARRL may have a big inventory of code practice tapes to sell
first ;-))
And the FR chief editor could be FISTS number 00001 for all you know.
Live and learn.
Heh heh, I don't care either way personally. I also like to drive stick
shift and the DMV removed the standard transmission test so many years ago I
can hardly remember when they tested for it The automatic transmission-only
drivers, however, did not have to wait for the relaxation to appear in the
FR.
Best Regards,
Stefan
an old friend
Stefan Wolfe wrote:
> <N2...@AOL.COM> wrote in message
> news:1169206482.0...@51g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
> > One item from FCC are in today's Federal Register (Vol 72, Number 12).
> > It's not the awaited Report and Order
>
> Get it now?
>
> This is how they keep the Morse filter in place while pleasing the activist
> no-code subset of ARRL membership.
>
guess you missed it
the the arrl is saying the pub date is likely to 24 jan with a an
efiftive 23 feb
peronably Id real like em to publish on monday making it effective the
21 it would be a nice brithday present for me
Dave Heil
> Ma...@kb9rqz.org wrote:
>> On 16 Jan 2007 15:47:17 -0800, N2...@AOL.COM wrote:
>>
>>> Nothing from FCC in today's Federal Register (Vol 72, Number 9).
>>>
>> frankly it satrts to look like you are trying to gloat
>
> No, Mark, it's just that Miccolis is so wrapped up in his knowitall
> syndrome that he MUST supply "news" of FCC 06-178 AS IF he
> were "in favor of it."
Please point to a single instance of Jim having written anything which
makes it appear that he is in favor of FCC 06-178, Leonard.
> Hardly that...Miccolis said more than once
> that eliminating the code test is a BAD THING.
It will be a bad thing.
> Tsk, tsk, he FAILED to supply such "news" for 18 Jan 07 ! ! !
> [at least by 1:39 PM eastern time on 18 Jan 07]
Why didn't you do it?
> Hmmm...let's see...the FCC themselves announced on 15 Dec 06
> what it was going to do, assigned their number on the R&O,
> published it...and the ARRL dutifully made a link to that (as
> if only the ARRL "knew" or something).
Please post anything the ARRL produced which made it appear that only
the League knew about it? What is the problem you have with fact?
> Beats me why Miccolis isn't working up in Newington for the ARRL.
That'll give you something to ponder. I'd have been there myself in
1975 if the League hadn't offered less money than I was making at the time.
> Come to think of it, that isn't unusual..."Scoop" Miccolis has
> always
> claimed "inside info" on just about anything. :-)
That's a deliberate falsehood, Len.
> Miccolis is the EXPERT on the US military...despite NEVER having
> been IN any military service himself...or even IN any part of US
> government service.
Don't let that bother you, Len. There's been a guy posting here who
writes like he fancies himself as knowledgeable about amateur radio.
He's never been a radio amateur, but to hear him tell it...
> He goes the transgender route, putting on his
> Nun of the Above habit and tries to ruler-spank those of us who were
> IN US military service because we DARED speak against morse
> code testing!
Transgender route? Are you taking too little of some prescription med
or perhaps too much?
> Now Jimmie once made a BIG thing about "not
> knowing a subject" such as the glory and majesty of morsemanship
> because some of us have never used it...but then he hypocritcally
> wanted to spank other veterans about their conduct towards
> morsemen veterans who wanted to keep code testing forever and
> ever.
Hypocritcally, huh?
> Miccolis isn't hard to understand, really, he KNOWS What
> Is Good For (HIS version of) Amateur Radio.
Tell us about *your* version of amateur radio, Len.
> He isn't hesitant to
> tell everyone who doesn't think like he does that they are
> "mistaken," or "plain and simply wrong."
When he's told you that you're mistaken, you've been mistaken.
> It's hard to reply to an
> ego that large.
You're entertaining, even if unintentionally, Leonard. Imagine a guy
like you, writing about someone's ego.
> LA
TI, DOH.
Dave K8MN
Stefan Wolfe
"an old friend" <kb9...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1169251164.1...@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> guess you missed it
Well, I do subscribe to QST.
>
> the the arrl is saying the pub date is likely to 24 jan with a an
> efiftive 23 feb
An "effitive" 23 feb?
>
> peronably
"peronably", me too!
> Id real like em
Id "real like em" to do "dat" too, yessir!
>to publish on monday making it effective the
> 21 it would be a nice brithday present for me
Well, happy "brithday". Have a nunder one...diss Bud's on me!
an old friend
Dave Heil wrote:
> LenAn...@ieee.org wrote:
> > Ma...@kb9rqz.org wrote:
> >> On 16 Jan 2007 15:47:17 -0800, N2...@AOL.COM wrote:
> >>
> >>> Nothing from FCC in today's Federal Register (Vol 72, Number 9).
> >>>
> >> frankly it satrts to look like you are trying to gloat
> >
> > No, Mark, it's just that Miccolis is so wrapped up in his knowitall
> > syndrome that he MUST supply "news" of FCC 06-178 AS IF he
> > were "in favor of it."
>
> Please point to a single instance of Jim having written anything which
> makes it appear that he is in favor of FCC 06-178, Leonard.
more of your red herring Len never said Jim was for just acting like
he was
indeed I expect the ARRL will following his lead in a few months
>
> > Hardly that...Miccolis said more than once
> > that eliminating the code test is a BAD THING.
>
> It will be a bad thing.
nope
even if it only end th e code wars it will be a good thing
>
> > Tsk, tsk, he FAILED to supply such "news" for 18 Jan 07 ! ! !
>
> > [at least by 1:39 PM eastern time on 18 Jan 07]
>
> Why didn't you do it?
>
> > Hmmm...let's see...the FCC themselves announced on 15 Dec 06
> > what it was going to do, assigned their number on the R&O,
> > published it...and the ARRL dutifully made a link to that (as
> > if only the ARRL "knew" or something).
>
> Please post anything the ARRL produced which made it appear that only
> the League knew about it? What is the problem you have with fact?
and check the claims of the ARRL to inside knowledge
hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com
What? You don't think Heil is capable of handling the "Spelling Cop"
role?
Not Lloyd
<hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1169264712.7...@11g2000cwr.googlegroups.com...
an old friend
well it is obviouss what is what but who cares
Stefan Wolfe
a while. However, this individual's posts are so laden with spelling errors
that it is "obviouss" that he was sleeping during grammar lessons at his
elementary school.
U-Know-Who
"Stefan Wolfe" <ste...@eml.com> wrote in message
news:45b24f5e$0$28106$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
He's a moron that claims an IQ of 247 but can't spell and does not need a
spell checker. He claims it's everyone else that is wrong for pointing out
his spelling. Keep reading, your eyes will hurt.
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
an old friend
U-Know-Who wrote:
> "Stefan Wolfe" <ste...@eml.com> wrote in message
> news:45b24f5e$0$28106$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>
> He's a moron that claims an IQ of 247 but can't spell and does not need a
> spell checker.
no I never said tom
> He claims it's everyone else that is wrong for pointing out
> his spelling.
never said that either
>Keep reading, your eyes will hurt.
and you will contiue liying SNAFU
hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com
Oh Geez! Dave will get all indignant over that remark. Like the time
I missed him on the A1A Op list...
any mouse
<hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1169336912....@11g2000cwr.googlegroups.com...
have enough time.
an_old_friend
hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Not Lloyd wrote:
> > <hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1169264712.7...@11g2000cwr.googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > Certainly not where Mark is concerned.
>
> Oh Geez! Dave will get all indignant over that remark. Like the time
> I missed him on the A1A Op list...
possibly although mr wolf could dave for all we know and the speling
just had to jump out
an_old_friend
hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Not Lloyd wrote:
> > <hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1169264712.7...@11g2000cwr.googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > Certainly not where Mark is concerned.
>
> Oh Geez! Dave will get all indignant over that remark. Like the time
> I missed him on the A1A Op list...
possibly although mr wolf could dave for all we know and the speling
just had to jump out
but I am assured that spelling copping will be forbttoten in the
Moderated NG
indeed lots will be what I have yet to see is something that would pass
and be posted
Ma...@kb9rqz.org
wrote:
>
>"an old friend" <kb9...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1169266680.8...@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>I can certainly understand people making an typo or spelling mistake once in
>a while. However, this individual's posts are so laden with spelling errors
>that it is "obviouss" that he was sleeping during grammar lessons at his
>elementary school.
wrong again mr wolf yours is just another in the seris of attack post
by the calless anymice
U-Know-Who
<Ma...@kb9rqz.org> wrote in message
news:tsm5r21e5sjdlkfad...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 12:20:26 -0500, "Stefan Wolfe" <ste...@eml.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"an old friend" <kb9...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:1169266680.8...@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>
>>I can certainly understand people making an typo or spelling mistake once
>>in
>>a while. However, this individual's posts are so laden with spelling
>>errors
>>that it is "obviouss" that he was sleeping during grammar lessons at his
>>elementary school.
>
> wrong again mr wolf yours is just another in the seris of attack post
> by the calless anymice
Then remind us, what is wrong with you?
U-Know-Who
"an_old_friend" <kons...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1169348490.5...@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
You will not post there.
hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com
any mouse wrote:
> <hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1169336912....@11g2000cwr.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Not Lloyd wrote:
> > > <hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:1169264712.7...@11g2000cwr.googlegroups.com...
> > > >
> > > > Stefan Wolfe wrote:
> > > > > "an old friend" <kb9...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > > news:1169251164.1...@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> > > > > >to publish on monday making it effective the
> > > > > > 21 it would be a nice brithday present for me
> > > > >
> > > > > Well, happy "brithday". Have a nunder one...diss Bud's on me!
> > > >
> > > > What? You don't think Heil is capable of handling the "Spelling Cop"
> > > > role?
> > > >
> > > Certainly not where Mark is concerned.
> >
> > Oh Geez! Dave will get all indignant over that remark. Like the time
> > I missed him on the A1A Op list...
> >
> It would take an army of Daves to correct all of Marks foul-ups. He wouldn't
> have enough time.
The world is not ready for an Army of Daves, but I think you are
underestimating him. Dave would die trying...
hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com
U-Know-Who wrote:
> "Stefan Wolfe" <ste...@eml.com> wrote in message
> news:45b24f5e$0$28106$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
> > I can certainly understand people making an typo or spelling mistake once
> > in a while. However, this individual's posts are so laden with spelling
> > errors that it is "obviouss" that he was sleeping during grammar lessons
> > at his elementary school.
>
> He's a moron that claims an IQ of 247 but can't spell and does not need a
> spell checker. He claims it's everyone else that is wrong for pointing out
> his spelling. Keep reading, your eyes will hurt.
He is dyslexic. Do you make fun of retards, too? Short bus jokes?
Maybe I'm smarter than the average bear, but most of the time I have no
trouble with what Mark is saying. If something isn't clear, I ask for
a repeat, and that almost always clears it up. Busting his chops over
spelling isn't going anywhere.
With as many years as I've spent overseas and hearing English spoken by
Asians, I guess a more practiced in actually trying to understand what
people are saying than picking apart what they say. YMMV.
hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com
U-Know-Who wrote:
> Then remind us, what is wrong with you?
Steve, what is wrong with you?
Gavrielah Hojnacki
It's obvious the yard is a total dump, marqueer!
http://i10.tinypic.com/4fzaadx.jpg
Dee Flint
<hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1169391898.8...@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
However, he has explicitly said that it is the reader's sole responsibility
to understand the material. This flies in the face of everything that is
taught in all English classes. It is the responsibility of the speaker or
writer to make the material understandable to the audience.
In addition, he has stated that it is not worth his time to bother to do
better as people in here aren't worth it. To me, I can't see why he would
even bother to post if the people in his audience aren't worth his time for
him to make it understandable.
If it isn't worth his time to do a reasonable job of writing, then it isn't
worth the audience's time to attempt to read it.
Dee, N8UZE
Dee Flint
"Dee Flint" <deefl...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:6c-dnd5oMtv5Oy7Y...@comcast.com...
In addition, I wish to add that it is entirely different than when dealing
with foreigners. When a foreigner is less than proficient in English for
example, they will follow a consistent pattern of usage that is easy to pick
up on fairly easily. The key to it is the fact that the pattern is
consistent and is based on their native tongue.
Dee, N8UZE
N2...@aol.com
> <hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1169391898.8...@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > U-Know-Who wrote:
> >> "Stefan Wolfe" <ste...@eml.com> wrote in message
> >> news:45b24f5e$0$28106$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
> >> > I can certainly understand people making an typo or spelling mistake
> >> > once
> >> > in a while. However, this individual's posts are so laden with spelling
> >> > errors that it is "obviouss" that he was sleeping during grammar
> >> > lessons
> >> > at his elementary school.
> >>
> >> He's a moron that claims an IQ of 247 but can't spell and does not need a
> >> spell checker. He claims it's everyone else that is wrong for pointing
> >> out
> >> his spelling. Keep reading, your eyes will hurt.
> >
> > He is dyslexic. Do you make fun of retards, too? Short bus jokes?
How about describing Morse Code skill as an "autistic talent"? I've
seen that
here. Also "emulating a modem".
> > Maybe I'm smarter than the average bear, but most of the time I have no
> > trouble with what Mark is saying. If something isn't clear, I ask for
> > a repeat, and that almost always clears it up. Busting his chops over
> > spelling isn't going anywhere.
> > With as many years as I've spent overseas and hearing English spoken by
> > Asians, I guess a more practiced in actually trying to understand what
> > people are saying than picking apart what they say. YMMV.
> However, he has explicitly said that it is the reader's sole responsibility
> to understand the material.
Exactly. He thinks his time is more valuable than your time.
> This flies in the face of everything that is
> taught in all English classes. It is the responsibility of the speaker or
> writer to make the material understandable to the audience.
As much as possible. Nobody writes perfectly 100% of the time, and some
people need more tools than others. And there are some things the
available
tools don't fix.
But to refuse to use the available tools indicates a disdain for the
audience.
>
> In addition, he has stated that it is not worth his time to bother to do
> better as people in here aren't worth it.
I don't remember that exact statement, but I do recall him saying that
he didn't
use tools like spellcheckers and grammar checkers because they slowed
him
down too much, and the number and volume of his postings would be
reduced.
So he just posts whatever comes out on the first go and leaves it to
the reader.
>To me, I can't see why he would
> even bother to post if the people in his audience aren't worth his time for
> him to make it understandable.
Some folks are more about shouting others down than they are about the
truth or
logic of what they are actually saying.
> If it isn't worth his time to do a reasonable job of writing, then it isn't
> worth the audience's time to attempt to read it.
AGREED!!!!
Years ago I used to try to make sense of those postings. Then I
realized
that the writer *could* use the available tools and write much more
clearly, but chose not to, because he considered his time to be more
valuable than mine.
So I just stopped reading his stuff.
73 de Jim, N2EY
an_old_friend
Dee Flint wrote:
> <hot-ham-a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1169391898.8...@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > U-Know-Who wrote:
> >> "Stefan Wolfe" <ste...@eml.com> wrote in message
> >> news:45b24f5e$0$28106$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
> >
> >> > I can certainly understand people making an typo or spelling mistake
> >> > once
> >> > in a while. However, this individual's posts are so laden with spelling
> >> > errors that it is "obviouss" that he was sleeping during grammar
> >> > lessons
> >> > at his elementary school.
> >>
> >> He's a moron that claims an IQ of 247 but can't spell and does not need a
> >> spell checker. He claims it's everyone else that is wrong for pointing
> >> out
> >> his spelling. Keep reading, your eyes will hurt.
> >
> > He is dyslexic. Do you make fun of retards, too? Short bus jokes?
> >
> > Maybe I'm smarter than the average bear, but most of the time I have no
> > trouble with what Mark is saying. If something isn't clear, I ask for
> > a repeat, and that almost always clears it up. Busting his chops over
> > spelling isn't going anywhere.
indeed it is strange that everyoine not bent on avoiding what I say can
read it
and that the OT the coders have forgotten you catch more flies with
honey than vinagar
> >
> > With as many years as I've spent overseas and hearing English spoken by
> > Asians, I guess a more practiced in actually trying to understand what
> > people are saying than picking apart what they say. YMMV.
> >
these folks want to pick it aprt so as the avoid the contents
you and I wish to comuncate they don't
>
> However, he has explicitly said that it is the reader's sole responsibility
> to understand the material.
indeed it is
>This flies in the face of everything that is
> taught in all English classes.
funny I have taken many english clases and been exactly the oppoisite
that it is indeed the readers responible to strugge for the meaning in
writen materail I certainly struggled for the meaning of a lot of
poetry in my time
> It is the responsibility of the speaker or
> writer to make the material understandable to the audience.
you have 2 choices DEE do the work or not
insulting me , or berating g me IS not going to make me see things your
way
>
> In addition, he has stated that it is not worth his time to bother to do
> better as people in here aren't worth it.
not exactly de but you are fast and loose with your facts
I Have said many of he people are not worth it
You amoug them, IMO
> To me, I can't see why he would
> even bother to post if the people in his audience aren't worth his time for
> him to make it understandable.
yet my audnece does understand the materail I know that from the email
I get comenting on it
you can't seem to understand becuase you don't want to
after all you claim Morse Code ability is just a matter of WANTING, to
same for my materail like morse like Peotry you have to want read, you
don't so you can't
>
> If it isn't worth his time to do a reasonable job of writing, then it isn't
> worth the audience's time to attempt to read it.
then don't and shut up about it nobody is making read it you choose to
read you choose to comment
>
> Dee, N8UZE
Dee Flint
<N2...@AOL.COM> wrote in message
news:1169403452....@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
I remember that he actually did state that the people in here weren't worth
taking the time to do it right. I'd have to do a Google search to prove it
but he isn't worth my time to do so since we (the audience for his writings)
are worth his effort to produce intelligible text.
Dee, N8UZE
Dee Flint
DRAT! I meant "...are not worth his effort to produce intelligible text."
Dee, N8UZE
an_old_friend
Dee Flint wrote:
> "Dee Flint" <deefl...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:PMidnSZOXJ4lKy7Y...@comcast.com...
> > Dee, N8UZE
>
> DRAT! I meant "...are not worth his effort to produce intelligible text."
by the standards you seek to impose you ought to be roundly flamed it
will not happen I am better than that I reconize reality and humanity
now I sugest you get over your porblem and either read my stuff or not
but please stop whining
in your day you make plenty of mistakes you even spent most of your
first year not posting in accord with normal USENET procedures and
according to you that was our problem
Hypocrite is the word for people like you
>
> Dee, N8UZE
Dave Heil
No apology necessary, Dee. You made an extra effort to produce
intelligible text!
Dave K8MN