wrote:
John Smith I wrote:
wrote:
...
The big question is why Len is so interested in changing the rules of
amateur radio,
when he's not involved with amateur radio in any other way.

Perhaps it just bothers him that someone is having fun?


Now I'd say that must be a trick question, as certainly, on the surface,
it appears only a moron would ask such a thing!

is no "moron." Brainwashed by the ARRL, yes, but
otherwise no dummy.

is clever. He makes his "charges" as "politely"
as possible yet are just another set of personal insults.
shrug

Len, you seem to regard any disagreement with your opinions as a
personal insult. You also seem to regard any correction of your
mistakes as a personal insult.

Show us where I have *really* insulted you as a person. For example,
have I ever
called you insulting nicknames rather than just "Len" or "Mr. Anderson"
or perhaps "Anderson"?

As for brainwashed - sorry, that's simply not true.

His kind have inhabited computer-modem comms since
ARPANET was created. I've seen his kind on computer-
modem comms in all varieties in the two decades plus
that I've done it.

I'd say Len would do little or nothing to hinder anyone from having
"fun." Now, for instance, say they were hogging up all the radio freqs
for a good 'ole boys club, he'd be a ****ed as hell--and rightly so!

That is all you are seeing. Len don't give a chit about children having
fun ...

On the contrary, I think children SHOULD have fun...when
they have free time to experience play.

Just as long as it's not in amateur radio.

I regard amateur radio as an ADULT activity

Why? FCC doesn't specify that in Part 97. Nor does any amateur
radio organization. Amateur radio is for all ages - as long as they
can meet the requirements and follow the rules.

that requires some
sense of responsibility, a responsibility that is not yet formed
in most children until the entrance to teen years.

Who are you to judge when a person is responsible enough?

And if young people haven't formed the responsibility, why
don't we see problems resulting from the lack of
an age requirement in the amateur radio service?

There has been mandatory licensing of amateur radio stations in the USA
since 1912 - 96 years! In all that time, and the hundreds of thousands
of
amateurs licensed, there has *never* been a minimum age requirement
for any class of amateur license. Some other countries like the UK and
Canada had age requirements but dropped them.

If licensee-responsibility problems were going to happen because
of the licensing of young radio amateurs, wouldn't we have seen them by
now?
Perhaps the 96 year experiment was flawed, somehow?

Here's a hint, Len: One of the ways responsibility is formed is by
being trusted
to meet a standard. An amateur radio license is one form of that.

Children have
a whole lifetime to experience yet and cannot possibly know
enough about adult society to be a deciding part of it.

How does being a radio amateur make a young person "a deciding part"
of "adult society"? Having an amateur license doesn't give young people
the right to vote, hold public office, or do anything special other
than
operate an amateur radio station.

Of course if someone is licensed at a young age, they may be influenced
to enter a technical or scientific career, as I was. Their amateur
radio
experience may count for something in the college admissions process,
too.
Why would we want to hinder those good things?

Perhaps the real explanation is that *you* can't deal with some things.
For
example, you probably don't like the idea of a young radio amateur
having
accomplished things you have not.

Or it may be something like this:

"I've always had trouble with integrating "youngsters"
in what is a primarily _adult_ skill/technique recreational
activity."
- Len Anderson


http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r...e=source&hl=en

Whether my quotes of your postings are old or new is irrelevant. Your
reactions
show that you still think the same way as when you wrote them.