Dwight Stewart wrote:

"Dave Heil" wrote:

I'm not at all uncomfortable with it,
Dwight. Len has had his say on countless
occasions. He isn't involved with amateur
radio though he knows some hams. He
has no background in amateur radio from
which to make an informed decision
regarding amateur radio testing. (snip)

Dave, I don't have a background in a lot of things (child birth,
international affairs with Belarus, NASA space missions, to name just a
few), but expect to have a voice in those things when I have something to
say and would be darn offended, and very confrontational, if someone told me
to go away simply because I don't have the proper background. I suspect you
would react the same way if you thought what you had to say was relevant.

I'm sorry, I can't agree with your new age "everyone's opinion has
value" when the topic is something in which someone has no background.
I take it that you believe that your opinions on child birth would be
meaningful or relevant to a woman who has had several children and that
your views on space flights would be found useful to NASA engineers. I
don't happen to think they would be. If you find that you have an
interest in a topic, I'd expect that you'd want to study it, learn a
great deal about it, participate to some degree--in other words, to gain
experience in the field under discussion. I'd expect, for example, that
someone who wants to participate to any meaningful degree in regulating
mining be schooled in mining and that someone who is to particpate in
the regulation of amateur radio be more than casually familiar with
amateur radio. If an individual has no background in a field and
attempted to preach to those actively engaged in that field, I'd not be
at all upset if that individual became "darned offended" or
confrontational. In fact, I'd find it fairly easy to go on with my
life.

And, even if it is true that Len "has no background in amateur radio from
which to make an informed decision regarding amateur radio testing," he has
nonetheless successfully managed in spite of that to make a decision about
code testing which is consistent with the decisions of many within the
Amateur Radio Service (people who do have the background you seek).

Well, he'd have to land somewhere on the issue, wouldn't he? He has
also arrived at a conclusion about code testing and about a minimum age
for radio amateurs which is at odds with the decisions reached by many
within the Amateur Radio Service (other people who have a background in
the subject).

He wants morse testing ended. Based
on what special knowledge and
background? (snip)

I didn't know a "special" knowledge or background was required. It doesn't
take great knowledge, or an indepth background, to see that Morse code is a
declining skill throughout the radio world.

Not in amateur radio, it isn't. Now you see that you and Len share a
common mistaken view. Each of you might have a desire to see it as a
truth but reality doesn't seem to bear it out.


Or to read what the FCC and
others have said about Morse code. Or to think through the issue. Or to form
an opinion based on any or all of that. Or voice that opinion.

Which brings us back to an earlier point made by you: that Len's opinion
should carry the same weight as the opinions of radio amateurs. The FCC
has said, on a number of occasions, that they'd wait for a concensus
among radio amateurs. They did not see fit to include SWL's or those
who worked at a military radio station in Japan fifty years ago. That
aside, Len has formed an opinion and has, on countless occasions, voiced
his opinion.

(snip) I'm certainly not forced to agree with
his views, to respect his views or to refrain
from sarcasm with regard to his views. (snip)

Of course. Just as Len is not forced to leave the discussion just because
you think he should.

Please point to one occasion in which I've suggested, requested or
demanded that the kindly old gent do so.

(snip) Len has participated and participated
and participated. (snip)

More power to him. He has just as much of a right to do so as anyone else.

Having the right to speak isn't the same as forcing others to listen, to
accept or to give the same weight to an opinion.

(snip) He wants to participate and to prevent
others from laughing at him or his ideas. (snip)

Really? I missed that. How has he tried to prevent others from doing
anything?

Go to Google. Select this newsgroup. Enter "Len Anderson". Be prepared
to devote one or more evenings.

(snip) Others are free to participate and may
form their own opinions of LHA's ideas. They are
free to laugh at his ideas, to poke fun of his ideas
and to counter his ideas. (snip)

(snip) I don't like what Len has to say and don't
care for his windy, pontificating and condescending
posts. (snip)

Lets be honest here, Dave. I seriously doubt his lack of a license, or
comments (condescending, outragious, or otherwise), would really bother you
that much if those comments agreed more with your own views.

Really? Have you noticed a single occasion where I've supported the
posts of Bruce?

In the end, the
only reason you point to his lack of a license, or try to ridicule his
ideas, is that you don't agree with what he has to say. There's nothing
wrong with that,

You still don't completely understand so again, I urge that Google
search. Len isn't just wrong, he's rude and abrasive. Len claims to
just want civil debate on the issue of code testing. His posts do not
bear that out.

but I doubt you are going to sway that many to your side of
the argument with such transparent tactics (few are that stupid).

The stupid are those who'd take their ideas about amateur radio or
amateur radio licensing from one who is not involved in any way with
amateur radio.

Never underestimate the stupid. They are legion.

Dave K8MN