Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
From: "bb" on Mon, Mar 14 2005 6:01 pm
wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
bb wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
Len has never come up with any proof for his assertion of ARRL
dishonesty either.
I didn't ask for proof. Just evidence. Len has not provided
*any* evidence in either case.
So people now have to have evidence for why they want an arbitrary
licensing requirement?
Absolutely, Brian! Tsk, some of these PCTAs want to take
code test elimination to the highest courts in the land! :-)
One of the guiding principles of US lawmaking is that there must be a
reason for every law. IOW, evidence that a law solves or prevents a
problem.
What problem does an age requirement for a ham license solve?
Never mind that my source of information (and cute picture)
of those two "youngest hams in the world" at 6 years old was
the ARRL News, on their website.
The fact that some 6 year olds passed ham license tests is not
evidence of any problem. Nor is it evidence of dishonesty.
I think Len is jealous of those children.
Jimmie wanna say I "lie."
Who is "Jimmie"? Can't be me.
Your source of information for what, Leonard? Removal of morse
testing?
Proof of ARRL dishonesty?
Jimmie
Who is "Jimmie"?
is of the opinion that ANY toddler (with a ham
license) ALWAYS behaves and could never, ever do anything
wrong on the air.
Well, that can't be me. I've never written anything even
remotely like that.
Also, six-year-olds aren't "toddlers". That term refers to children in
the 1-3 year old range, at most. Once again, Len
makes a telling mistake.
Len has also not provided any evidence of a problem caused by
lack of a license age requirement. His proposed age requirement
would bar people more than double the age of a six-year-old
from any class of ham license - for no reason except for Len's
admitted problems with integrating youngsters into what *he*
considers adult activities. IOW, it's *his* problem.
Neither do such toddlers EVER cause
trouble on a playground or with their parents in super-
markets, etc., etc., etc.
Six year olds aren't toddlers. Nor are 13 year olds.
Len behaves like a toddler in here, though. ;-) ;-)
There is plenty of proof that adults cause enforcement problems in
amateur radio. Can you come up with any proof that amateur radio ops
who are children have caused any enforcement problems?
Apparently not. Thus the misdirection by Len.
Of course, if such code-tested kids grow up to be extras
then they will be beyond reproach! PCTA extras can never
ever be charged with ANY impropriety!
Really? Have you found the mother lode of "special" mushrooms?
No, Len just got a new shovel.
Tsk, tsk. The league continues to Sin by Omission on
much of its "news." Such "evidence" is glaringly in
view by comparing REAL news sources output about an
event also "reported" by the league.
See?
Isn't the ARRL a REAL source of amateur radio news? Have you made a
Sin
of Commission? Glaringly in view? You're "reportedly" a
PROFESSIONAL
writer. Tsk, tsk.
The league is the league and beyond reproach. None may
gainsay a thing nasty about them. The league is holy.
The ARRL is just something else you in which you play no part.
Like rearing children.
By their virtue of being PCTA extras, gods of radio like
Jimmie KNOW EVERYTHING and what they KNOW is the TRUTH.
Who is "Jimmie"?
Perhaps it's one of Len's alter-egos, because he sure seems to consider
himself to be the above description.
I thought you believed it to be the TRVTH. Do you KNOW EVERYTHING?
Look in other threads in this newsgroup. Jimmie KNOWS
about things having NOTHING to do with amateur radio
and doesn't hesitate to tell the world he is "right."
...and feel free to look at any number of other thread in this
newsgroup
where you purport to KNOW all about amateur radio. Your mistake and
factual errors are legend.
Never mind that Jimmie has NEVER been IN government or
in national party politics, he KNOWS it all without EVER
being IN government nor expressing any desire to be IN
government or national politics.
Have you EVER been IN government, Len? Do you KNOW all about party
politics? Have you ever stated that you'd win a political election
"right of the box"?
Tsk, tsk, tsk...I've never claimed to be IN amateur radio
since I began advocating the elimination of the morse code
test. [over two decades ago, by the way]
How very peculiar. You appoint yourself advocate for the removal of
morse code testing for something in which you have no involvement and
you stay with it for twenty years. In all that time, you've never
attempted to pass an exam which would allow you to be a participant.
Tsk, tsk, tsk.
Pot...kettle....
There's no good reason for a minimum age requirement
for an amateur
radio license in the USA. We have more than 90 years
of evidence to
back that up.
You'd think that if a problem existed, it would have
manifested itself by now.
Yep. But it hasn't. And as previously mentioned, the cb
service had such a rule, but it was not effective in
keeping that service well-behaved and law-abiding.
Jim, you're unlikely to be able to reason out how an arbitrary
licensing requirement will manifest itself. That is the beauty of
arbitrary requirements.
Brian, he just CANNOT change his mind.
Can't be talking about me. I have changed my mind on many things.
In your twenty years of self-appointed advocacy with regard to
removal
of the morse code test in amateur radio, were you ever able to change
your mind on the issue? If not, it would appear that you CANNOT
change
your mind about the issue. There is evidence that you can easily
change
your mind about that "Extra right out of the box".
But, we can't disturb this god of radio right now. He
is very busy manufacturing a mountain out of a molehill
right now. He wants to make an "example" of something
I wrote to the FCC over six years ago, possibly preparing
a writ for submission to the Supreme Court or something...
It isn't a molehill, Leonard. You did write to the FCC in support of
a
minimum age for entry into amateur radio. There is no indication
that
you ever changed your mind on that subject. There as been no
disavowal
from you.
Nor any evidence of problems caused by lack of an age limit, nor
evidence of dishonesty by the VEs who gave the license exams to those
six-year-olds.
Len's "logic" boils down to this:
- He thinks there's no way a six year old could pass the tests
honestly. Never mind that he doesn't know the six-year-olds in
question, nor has he ever passed any amateur exam, he simply KNOWS
there must be "fraud" involved.
- He thinks that even though there hasn't been an age requirement for a
US ham license since the very beginning of such licensing 93 years ago,
such a requirement MUST be added to the rules - even though he can
present not a single case of a problem or enforcement action caused by
the lack of such a requirement.
I really do think he's jealous.
73 de Jim, N2EY