RadioBanter - View Single Post

May 31st 05, 11:55 PM

wrote:
Heh heh, I've heard the particular lament of "we can't get
these (darn) kids to LISTEN to us!" for lots of generations
and have read of the same thing in books printed before I
existed. :-) It's a VERY common parental angst.

Gee, Len, since you've never actually been a parent, it sounds
like you're talking about something you've never actually done..

One thing that teachers learn - if they are good at teaching -
is to NEVER TALK DOWN to students...not even if one is boiling
over inside because they "won't listen." :-) The problem is
really in the teacher being unable to properly teach. That
applies to ANY subject and ANYONE explaining something. The
"teacher" has to address the subject, put the spotlight on it
and avoid shining the spotlight on themselves. The subject
will be new to the "students" but the "teacher" is familiar.

Have you ever been a teacher of young people, Len?

"Teachers" have to know much more about the subject than
their "lesson plan." They have to organize their "teaching"
into a comprehensible, learnable flow of ideas and concepts
that "students" can mentally digest (difficult but obviously
not impossible). Knowing more about the subject than the
"plan outline," allows them to field interruptions of some
"students" about bits and pieces of the subject that they
might have already learned. Such "students" could be
lightly disciplined "in class" with something like "that's
true, but let's bring that up later after we look at the
overall picture (of this subject)." There's lots of similar
ways to keep control on "teaching" a subject to a group.

You don't seem to be able to do any teaching here, though, Len.

That's true but way too many (in here at least) want to get
"insulted" from an apparent "attack" on what they do! :-)

You get insulted by someone disagreeing with you, or pointing
out your mistakes.

Having spent over a half century IN radio and electronics,
having been to many places, being a member of the IEEE for
32 years, my observation (shared with others) is that the
"technical people" got INTO technology because it was
interesting to them personally...WITHOUT having to go
through the licensed amateur radio route. Far more non-
amateurs in professional electronics than those who might
have gotten a ham ticket during their teen-age years.

So? You've never been a radio amateur, either.

The technical phenomenon of cellular telephony has put
roughly 100 MILLION cell phones into the USA population.
[statement of the U.S. Census Bureau over two years ago
based on cell phone subscriptions here as one in three
of the population] Cell phones (little two-way radios in
themselves) are just extensions of a general need to
communicate amongst one's peer group...little different
from wired telephone use by teenagers a half century ago.

And they don't require any license by the user. They're almost
totally automatic in operation, too. Is that what
you think amateur radio should be?

Using cell phones as a "hobby" is wrong.

Says who?

Semi-private
communications is a social group act, not a hobby.

What in the world does that mean?

Those who are too IN to their particular hobby (such as
amateur radio) have lost sight of how widespread and
pervasive the entire world of "radio" has become.

Who are you talking about, Len?

They've
lost sight of that other technical phenomenon, the Internet
with its ability to reach most of the world without any
ionospheric perterbations affecting HF bands.

So what?

They've
become ignorant to the fact that the rest of the "radio"
world has gone beyond HF, that HF is NOT the Holy Grail
of communications means nor are the very early skills
of "radio operating" some kind of ultimate test of
"skill."

Who said they were?

You sound like a powerboater trying to ruin the fun of sailboaters.

True enough. History - as far as some folks' attitudes -
DOES repeat itself, again and again. :-)

Yep, we see your same old tired wornout attitudes here again
and again, Len...;-)

The paradigms of yesterday just DON'T apply today.

Some of them do. Or do you insist on a continuous techno-cultural
revolution?

Those
reasons for being have been crowded out with a cornucopia
of NEW, challenging avocations affordable by most. The
world and technology has CHANGED. Some people haven't.

Is that a bad thing? Is all change somehow good?

The inability to change, to accept change, may be a human
survival trait? The "familiar" represents "security." It
is known. To be good at something is comforting, reassuring.
To individuals. But, the overall "tribe" has accepted
change, accepted it, and is enjoying it.

Not all change is good, Len. The fact that the mob does something
does not make it better, or right.

Look at the contest between the text messagers and the Morse Code
operators. The "tribe" (the audience) was so sure the world-champion
text messagers would be faster than the Morse Code operators in their
historic costumes. Yet the Morse Code ops, going about 1/3 world
record speed, passed the message perfectly, without abbreviations,
and presented the result in written form before the text messagers
could even get the message inputted into the 'phone. (They had two
words to go - "car insurance").

And it's rather surreal to see you lecturing and posturing on
"young'uns in Ham Radio" when it was *you* who suggested to FCC that
*no-one* below the age of 14
years be allowed to obtain *any* class of amateur radio license. Yet
when asked
for examples of young people causing problems in amateur radio because
of their
youth, you could not give a single example.