Mike:
No one should ever be confused by the term "old phart", or any derivative
of that terms' meaning.
At ~55 I AM AN OLD PHART! But, perhaps there is fudge room" till 60, ask
a teenager and 35+ is an old phart, ask an old phart and he will claim
there ain't none (especially if he is the oldest-old phart--otherwise he
just points at "the old guy!" grin)
By 65+ you are past the concern of the world--if you are still
attempting to maintain control, have a trophy wife on your arm, and
find a viagra tab--you just look pathetic to anyone in the real world...
70 is ancient, 75-80 is dead, however some dead people are still animate,
and even past 80! Science is working on prolonging lifespans, they need
to work more on keeping 'em from looking like corpses! (I just love the
guys with a rug stretched over their head--if they were wondering if I
notice--I DO!)
I may be accused of "being insensitive", I won't even consider arguments
claiming I am in error...
A good way to know you are just in the way and embarrassing yourself, and
having others embarrassed for you, is when:
You no longer are current and up-to-date, break into long boring stories
of yesterday, and find younger people a bother when they are
participating in your activity and especially when showing you up, and you
fail to notice what a drain you are on the younger people about you...
.... nothing gets better as you get older, and that's a fact! (well,
except the younger women! grin)
John
On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 20:19:32 -0400, Mike Coslo wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
I'll write my thoughts on these quotes below. Hopefully Carl and
whoever will take them in a constructive manner.
Carl Stevenson 1997
"We'd be better off if we could, instead, find a way to reeducate the
whining olde fartz ... those whose knowledge of radio is frozen in the
30s and 40s somewhere don't deserve their licenses today, no matter how
fast they can beep ..."
Ouch! That never should have been written. If a person doesn't like CW,
fine. But that never should have been written by any person who would
someday count those people among his/her constituents.
Better things could be written, such as: We would be better off if we
could engage the more experienced Hams in the concept of lifetime
education. Radio technology has come so far that it can only be
advantageous to strongly encourage, perhaps even require the knowledge
of new technology, as old and obsolete technology falls to the wayside.
Probably better than calling them olde fartz.
Carl Stevenson 1998:
"The majority of the opposition is, IMNSHO, based on people's
experiences with "frequency coordinators" who warehouse frequencies
for private repeaters for their cronies and an ARRL which is
totally out of touch with today's world, tries at every turn to
thwart progress in favor of the status quo of stagnancy and decay,
and could care less what the majority of hams feel or believe."
"In a word, 'bull****,' Ed ... it's just that the majority of hams who
are not ARRL members (and even many of us who ARE) know full-well how
the good-old-boy politics of the ARRL work and have seen this type of
move coming for some time."
" More BS, Ed ... the ARRL's sleazy attempt at end-run regulation
speaks volumes about the ARRL."
"I freely admit my bias against current (counting the past few decades)
ARRL policy and current 'leadership.' I am by no means a 'lone wolf'
in holding this opinion."
These aren't in enough context for me to make any judgment on.
Carl Stevenson 1999:
"I don't think we should establish 'protected class' setasides
for ANY legacy technology ... "
Carl's race for the Atlantic Division Directorship should be interesting
at the very least. Should he actually get elected, I'm sure the
seasoned veterans of the League will welcome him with open arms.
I do believe that a person is entitled to change their mind. This is of
course as long as there is adequate reasons given. Too many people have
been hamstrung by the idea that for a person to be consistent, they must
make up their mind early (usually by a party line) and to never never
ever change it.
So while it raises my interest that Carl has changed his mind on some
items, I am inclined to grant him the Benefit. I see nothing
particularly wrong with his present position.
That is that part. On the other hand, I am concerned with the "Olde
Fartz" business, as well as some discussions I have had with him here.
Was he just being a little wound up one day, or does he really support
removing the licenses of "whining olde fartz". And regarding elimination
of Element one, and the consequent endorsement of reduction of the test
requirements, after saying the "n" word, (never), do I take him at his
word, or do I be careful for (at best) strained interpretations of what
was actually said.
There ya go, Carl. I'm not trying to be confrontational, just honest. I
might still support you, I suspect that you would do a good job, but I
do have some concerns.
- Mike KB3EIA -
|