--- On 13 Nov 1996 16:56:06 -0700 Fatchett.Mike@tci.com wrote:
----------
From: Fatchett, Mike
Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 1996 4:39 PM
To: (Bill Fisher KM9P)
Subject: RE: FCC lied about Gate 2
I think to be fair to all involved the whole process should be re-run
properly and random as the FCC stated it would. I hope the ARRL would
investigate this further, But knowing some of the odd things that have
occurred with the ARRL and the FCC in the past I would not count on it.
I intend to inform my state Senator and Representative of this issue. I
am tired of the Government pulling these games whether it be with the FCC
or other agencies.
I would suggest to anyone that feels similarly to call the FCC
immediately. From a conversation I had today I am the only one to call
and question the random processing.
I encourage you all to look at the calls the electronic filers received.
N4CW, W4KK, W6DX, K6AM, N0DX, K0DX, K0AA, K6CQ and the list of
desirable calls goes on and on.
I would sure hold off printing my QSL's until I had my printed license in
my hand.
It is unfortunate that such and easy task could be messed up so badly.
Mike
W0MU
----------
Please, don't even think of asking for a rerun! We all know we got screwed, but
think of
the 4000+ happy guys out there. If in fact, the FCC did NOT process the E
filings randomly,
and they certainly didn't do it by order received, but indeed processed them in
REVERSE order,
thatis fraud, and stinks to high heaven of insider information. I STRONGLY
suspect the random
number generator was what was crashing the software, and that the FCC did NOT
process the
E filings by random. If indeed they did it in reverse order, that might be
grounds for
revoking every one of the E filings.
Ed
-----------------End of Original Message-----------------
-------------------------------------
Name: Ed Sleight
E-mail: k4sb@avana.net
Time: 1:23:24 AM
-------------------------------------
>From HWDX09A@prodigy.com ( ROBERT REED) Thu Nov 14 04:52:51 1996
From: HWDX09A@prodigy.com ( ROBERT REED) ( ROBERT REED)
Subject: FW: FCC lied about Gate 2
Message-ID: <199611140452.XAA10562@mime4.prodigy.com>
I am just as annoyed as everyone else that the FCC processing of the
Gate 2 applications did not follow announced procedures. I had to
readjust my mailing to conform with the "banking day" Saturday
arrivals after Scott AA8SM announced that change rather than having
it arrive on Monday 9/23/96 when the FCC said the box would open.
Then we wait until 9/15/96 when we expect the FCC to announce the
electronic filing ablity. Do they do that, NO, we get a beta test
site announced to be online only for the week. The electronic filing
real thing gets announced on Friday too late for many of us to use as
we have already filed paper applications that are enroute to arrive
as Day One's.
Did anyone ever see a Federal Register public announcement of the
avaliablity of electronic filing ? Was it a timely announcement or
should all electronic applications be deemed invalid and set aside.
Certainly the processing of these applications FIRST when these
people filing electronily had no chance of filing a paper application
properly should be addressed.
I got choice #3 held by a long time friend who passed away 20 years
ago. It was certainly an early choice but how do I know my #1 or #2
was not taken by an electronic application that probably should never
have been accepted.
I won't even go in to the fact that the FCC suddenly violated its own
rules of doing away with an official signature. Heck we can't even
FAX an application for electronic renewal because the signature isn't
original but an electronic representation. Entering your name on a
keyboard is not less of an electronic representation.
I won't call the FCC completely wrong but my opinion is that all
electronic filed applications need to be recalled an dismissed.
____
73, Bob Reed, W2CE, ex WB2DIN
1991 Route 37 West - Lot 109
Toms River, New Jersey 08757
>From kg5u@hal-pc.org (Dale Martin) Thu Nov 14 06:35:07 1996
From: kg5u@hal-pc.org (Dale Martin) (Dale Martin)
Subject: Does anyone really know what time it is?
Message-ID: <01BBD1C3.BC86CF40@pm2-96.hal-pc.org>
I use the U.S. Naval Observatory Clock...
Check it out:
http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/cgi-bin/xbmclock.xbm?zone=CST
This is the how to...
http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/howclock.html
More frequently, when I want to update my computer's clocks, I
simply turn on my Omni VI and put it on 10MHz.
73,
Dale Martin, KG5U
kg5u@hal-pc.org
http://www.hal-pc.org/~kg5u
>From k6el@juno.com (Jon E Casamajor) Thu Nov 14 06:39:36 1996
From: k6el@juno.com (Jon E Casamajor) (Jon E Casamajor)
Subject:
References: <0020f0704010eb6CLIENTS2@comcastpc.com>
Message-ID: <19961114.053556.2431.18.K6EL@juno.com>
On Wed, 13 Nov 1996 20:03:59 -0500 bsimonson@comcastpc.com (Beryl D.
Simonson K3AR) writes:
----------<snip>------.-.-.-
>This is not meant to flame anyone, but the few individuals who had to
>have X1XX, or X1XY, and want to litigate to get it, can sure mess the
>process up for the vast majority of us who are more than satisfied
>that we got one of our choices.
>
>Beryl
Boy, I can't agree more Beryl!!
Many weeks ago we all KNEW we were in a lottery, run by the FCC, a
questionable "branch" of our "government". So,where was all the"
litigators mentality" when that was an obvious reality that we all had
effectively "bought into" and had to deal
with?
We all put out choices in, and took our chances. I resigned myself to
just
"live with it" and be happy with whatever the result was. we were all
living with the rules, the umpires and the result...at least most of us
were it appears.
I put in my 25 choices and would have been thrilled to get any one of
them.
I submitted via FedEx which was delivered the 23rd at 10am along with a
buddy's application. I got my first choice, my buddy didn't get ANY of
his!
(He has already shaken it off and re-submitted along with another check
and has a GREAT attitude about it! Lots of GOOD stuff still remains it
seems!)
I was fortunate enough to get my first pick. I am sure it could have
been done better, but I've waited 23+ years for a 1x2 and I'm not
complaining
about anything!
73 de Jon...K6EL( ex KN6EL)
K6EL@JUNO.COM
>From G.Force@flashnet.it (Giorgio Fanelli) Thu Nov 14 07:16:13 1996
From: G.Force@flashnet.it (Giorgio Fanelli) (Giorgio Fanelli)
Subject: about band edge
Message-ID: <199611140716.IAA10156@star.flashnet.it>
Hello reader
I am one ex officier of italian PT (corrispondant of american FCC) and few
year ago I work for interference control office. In Italy the law is vy
outdated (last regulation is dated 1966) but the frequency of SSB signal is
mesured by the frequency of suppressed carrier then when signal is cleary
readable this is the official frequency. I don't know if this is correct but
that is all. Any disagree. Drop me a line. George I0YQV.
>From goofy@hk.net (Tom Ewing) Thu Nov 14 08:35:22 1996
From: goofy@hk.net (Tom Ewing) (Tom Ewing)
Subject: IC-736
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.95.961114163249.10999D-100000@hk.net>
On Wed, 13 Nov 1996 ua3dpx@mars.arsenal.ru wrote:
> Hello Everyone!!
> Who can tell me about IC-736 Is it a good radio or not
> I mean contest characteristics???
> And what money realy worth to pay for it?
> 161!Andy
>
I'm sorry......this now the "Vanity" reflector, where brainless gloating ,
pissing and moaning are order of the day.
Tom
VR96GO
|