KH6HZ wrote:
We know the FCC isn't
going to introduce any MORE license classes, the trend for the past 20?
years has been to REDUCE licensing requirements and make it easier for
anyone to get a ham license.

There may even come a time when all amateur radio operators
are created equal, existing within one amateur radio license
caste, without the no-code untouchable caste, finally a single
brotherhood of hams.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:
KH6HZ wrote:
We know the FCC isn't going to introduce any MORE license classes, the
trend for the past 20? years has been to REDUCE licensing requirements
and make it easier for anyone to get a ham license.

There may even come a time when all amateur radio operators
are created equal, existing within one amateur radio license
caste, without the no-code untouchable caste, finally a single
brotherhood of hams.

My gawd!

Peasants sitting with kings?

Blasphemy!

chuckle
JS

Alun L. Palmer wrote:
John Smith I wrote in news:cGYlh.25$WW2.223285
@news.sisna.com:

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!

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 ...

JS


I must admit he could be annoyed at a load of Morse code operators
monopolising a chunk of phone spectrum. I always was too, but only because
I wanted to use that spectrum. He apparently doesn't want to use it, which
is a little harder to understand.

Tsk, tsk. My advocacy (in the last few years) has been (among
other political issues, all local) simply to end the morse code test
for an amateur radio license. The morsemen just don't understand
that and I neither pity nor "envy" them.

The morse code test has long been a political issue. Keeping it
defies all logic (except to the terminally brainwashed) in the whole
wider world of radio extending well beyond amateurism.

Now, last I looked, the US federal government will accept ANY
citizen's comments on ANY subject...including radio regulations.
The US federal government does not "require" some kind of
license in a particular radio service to "allow" comments to enter.
One can comment to the FCC on matters of Mass Media
(broadcast or wired interstate) without having to be IN those
communications services or be "licensed" in them. It should be
that way in regards to a hobby radio activity such as amateur
radio...but some in here object to that so strongly that they
continue to attack anyone not agreeing with their points of view.

BTW, Len, I have an EE degree and used to work in an EMC lab (EMC being
what most people call radio interference, approximately speaking). Some
people hear that and jump to the conclusion that I was in ham radio
enforcement, which makes me laugh, because I never was. I could just add
that I moved into the law, but the same people would probably think that I
was prosecuting interference cases (!) whereas in fact I am a patent agent.

You've mentioned that before in here and I respect that.

My point is that many hams are (or were) radio professionals, but not all
of us drop references to our professional experience when we are talking in
a group of hams, except where it's actually relevant to the discussion. I
have met a few people who claim they could never be hams because they have
professional experience in radio, but I have never understood that point of
view.

You've misjudged my point of view. I mention that I am (and
have been for a long time) a paid electronics engineer (i.e., a
"professional" in the generic sense of the term). It should,
but does not (to some) indicate where my opinions are coming
from. Nothing in that experience has led to any "hate of
amateurs" or any sort of bigotry against amateur radio. What
I *AM* against is the insular, fairy-tale sort of mindset, the one
rooted in a time decades past, where old-time amateur radio
"is" what radio is all about and that long-time amateurs are
"more expert" in radio (entire) than all others.

Get a licence and try 'slumming' on the ham bands, Len. You won't be the
only one, you know!

I do not regard "getting on" amateur radio as "slumming" or
any other derogatory term. Amateur radio is basically a hobby
endeavor involving radio and I think that all should have some
form of hobby (their time permitting). I will never regard
amateur radio as a form of modal-ethical lifestyle that rules
a life as some seem to do.

In the political battle of "pro-coders" versus no-code-test
advocates, the NCTA have "won." FCC 06-178 will soon
become law. What is seen in here now is a bunch of Sour
Grapes sippers, Whining all sorts of things...and tossing out
false charges of "motivation" and personal descriptions.

Sigh...the insular lifestylers of morsemanship in hamdom keep
venting their spleens in here, attacking all who do not conform to
Their desires. Once FCC 06-178 becomes law, I will drop
commentary on the code test in here. I've said that many times
before in here and now I've said it again. Watch this space for
the spleen-venters angrily spout off on my "motivations" again. :-)

I have to admit that retribution does indeed feel good. To those
rabid morsemen, I just "flip them the bird" and smile... :-)



Note: That "ieee.org" is a free forwarding alias for e-mail that I
can enjoy and not some "constant mention of professionalism."
:-)

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!

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

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

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.

I regard amateur radio as an ADULT activity that requires some
sense of responsibility, a responsibility that is not yet formed
in most children until the entrance to teen years. Children have
a whole lifetime to experience yet and cannot possibly know
enough about adult society to be a deciding part of it.

Jimmie is obstinate to a remarkable degree. He wants, desires,
may even have some form of orgasm in wishing to prolong a
seven-year-old suggestion I made to the FCC in 1999. :-)

Incredible. But, John, "you knew that," didn't you? :-)

John Smith I wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
Well, CB John, it seems to have aroused some interest in you.


"CB John?" Hey, I kinda like the ring to that, it has potential, thanks!

I'd say Len would do little or nothing to hinder anyone from having
"fun."


Really? Looks like Len knows how to have fun to me, I can almost hear
him snickering now--perhaps just my imagination ...

I'm of the opinion that attending a social event where Len was present
would virtually guarantee an absence of fun. He has a gift.

Really? Darn, his dry wit makes me bust a gut often ... wonder how you
could miss that?

Tsk...Jimmie doesn't like HIS gut busted. :-)

He is a morseman amateur extra...he "knows" what is "right"
and none may say nay to his godly words.

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!

Len isn't involved in the use of amateur radio frequencies. How is it
his right to be upset? Len isn't a licensed radio amateur.

What does being an amateur radio operator have to do with deciding how
to use the peoples radio frequencies?

It's a "secret" rule invoked by morsemen by some acting of
congress? :-)

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

That's incorrect, "John". Len has told us that he has a problem with
children participating in what he sees as an adult activity.


Now that is just plain false, misleading and outrageous, look at all the
fun Len has here--playing with the children!

Tsk, John, calling these Mighty Macho Morsemen "children!"

For penance you must say 50 Hail Hirams, go, sin no more!




Oh, that poor "bird." I keep flipping him so much to Jimmie...

Happy New Year! (Waiting for Michigan to trounce USC)

LA

wrote:
...
Incredible. But, John, "you knew that," didn't you? :-)




Len:

Well, kinda ...

But, I have a much deeper understanding now ... grin

Regards,
JS

" wrote in
ups.com:

Alun L. Palmer wrote:
John Smith I wrote in
news:cGYlh.25$WW2.223285 @news.sisna.com:

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!

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 ...

JS


I must admit he could be annoyed at a load of Morse code operators
monopolising a chunk of phone spectrum. I always was too, but only
because I wanted to use that spectrum. He apparently doesn't want to
use it, which is a little harder to understand.

Tsk, tsk. My advocacy (in the last few years) has been (among
other political issues, all local) simply to end the morse code test
for an amateur radio license. The morsemen just don't understand
that and I neither pity nor "envy" them.

The morse code test has long been a political issue. Keeping it
defies all logic (except to the terminally brainwashed) in the whole
wider world of radio extending well beyond amateurism.

Now, last I looked, the US federal government will accept ANY
citizen's comments on ANY subject...including radio regulations.
The US federal government does not "require" some kind of
license in a particular radio service to "allow" comments to enter.
One can comment to the FCC on matters of Mass Media
(broadcast or wired interstate) without having to be IN those
communications services or be "licensed" in them. It should be
that way in regards to a hobby radio activity such as amateur
radio...but some in here object to that so strongly that they
continue to attack anyone not agreeing with their points of view.

BTW, Len, I have an EE degree and used to work in an EMC lab (EMC
being what most people call radio interference, approximately
speaking). Some people hear that and jump to the conclusion that I was
in ham radio enforcement, which makes me laugh, because I never was. I
could just add that I moved into the law, but the same people would
probably think that I was prosecuting interference cases (!) whereas
in fact I am a patent agent.

You've mentioned that before in here and I respect that.

My point is that many hams are (or were) radio professionals, but not
all of us drop references to our professional experience when we are
talking in a group of hams, except where it's actually relevant to the
discussion. I have met a few people who claim they could never be hams
because they have professional experience in radio, but I have never
understood that point of view.

You've misjudged my point of view. I mention that I am (and
have been for a long time) a paid electronics engineer (i.e., a
"professional" in the generic sense of the term). It should,
but does not (to some) indicate where my opinions are coming
from. Nothing in that experience has led to any "hate of
amateurs" or any sort of bigotry against amateur radio. What
I *AM* against is the insular, fairy-tale sort of mindset, the one
rooted in a time decades past, where old-time amateur radio
"is" what radio is all about and that long-time amateurs are
"more expert" in radio (entire) than all others.

Get a licence and try 'slumming' on the ham bands, Len. You won't be
the only one, you know!

I do not regard "getting on" amateur radio as "slumming" or
any other derogatory term. Amateur radio is basically a hobby
endeavor involving radio and I think that all should have some
form of hobby (their time permitting). I will never regard
amateur radio as a form of modal-ethical lifestyle that rules
a life as some seem to do.

In the political battle of "pro-coders" versus no-code-test
advocates, the NCTA have "won." FCC 06-178 will soon
become law. What is seen in here now is a bunch of Sour
Grapes sippers, Whining all sorts of things...and tossing out
false charges of "motivation" and personal descriptions.

Sigh...the insular lifestylers of morsemanship in hamdom keep
venting their spleens in here, attacking all who do not conform to
Their desires. Once FCC 06-178 becomes law, I will drop
commentary on the code test in here. I've said that many times
before in here and now I've said it again. Watch this space for
the spleen-venters angrily spout off on my "motivations" again. :-)

I have to admit that retribution does indeed feel good. To those
rabid morsemen, I just "flip them the bird" and smile... :-)



Note: That "ieee.org" is a free forwarding alias for e-mail that I
can enjoy and not some "constant mention of professionalism."
:-)


I think you misunderstand me, Len. All I'm saying is that there are quite a
few radio professionals who are also radio hams, and you ought to at least
give it a try.

I have been opposed to code testing for the last 35 years, but it's all
over bar the shouting.

As for the age limit thing, we used to have a lower limit of 14 in the UK,
but it was dropped completely and never missed. The only really valid issue
IMHO is safety from abuse by adults, and that is an issue with the Internet
and in many other situations. I don't think it's a reason to keep kids off
the air.

The only RL life case I know of involving ham radio was someone in an area
where I used to live who allegedly enticed local boys into his radio shack,
If you think about it, preventing them from having their own licences could
have made his station all the more interesting to them.

John Smith I wrote:
wrote:
....
Len thinks there should be such a requirement. He thinks no one under
the age of 14 years
should be able to get any class of US amateur license, regardless of
their ability to pass the license tests.

There is some concern I have mulled over in my mind, about youngsters
getting a ticket too young. Until fairly recently, I thought it would
be great ...

It's been a great idea since licenses were required.

However, having seen quite a few individuals who might be of a "pedo
nature", now not only do I have a concern about youngsters with internet
access but also with a ham ticket!

Perhaps - but that was not Len's reason for wanting to ban
under-14-year-olds from
amateur radio.

As for your concern, consider this:

- Have there been *any* problems of that nature in amateur radio?

- If interested young people are banned from amateur radio, wouldn't
they
tend to gravitate more to the unlicensed services such as FRS/GMRS and
cb?
Wouldn't the anonymous nature of such radio service be a better venue
for problem-makers
than the callsign-using amateur radio service?

Seems to me the age-requirement thing is a solution in search of a
problem.

wrote:
...
- Have there been *any* problems of that nature in amateur radio?
...

When you have seen that priests, school teachers, and gov't officials
have all had problems with child molesters in their ranks, logic demands
you attend to the fact they are here with us ...

And, yanno, 'specially the blond blue eyed female teachers, they bother
me the most--wish they would come to me for "counseling" poor babies ...
evil grin

Actually, I think they are the most hideous. According to statistics,
the young men they molest all grow up and become molesters themselves.
However, unlike their female counterparts they do NOT receive a simple
slap on the hand, they do prison time ... time to reverse this
perversity and punish the females equally.

Regards,
JS

KH6HZ wrote:
wrote:

Len thinks there should be such a requirement. He thinks no one under
the age of 14 years should be able to get any class of US amateur
license, regardless of their ability to pass the license tests.

Len has a (small) point.

Not on the issue of age requirements for an amateur radio license..

Generally speaking, 14 year olds lack the knowledgebase to properly pass the
theory elements in higher license classes -- that is, without "memorization"
or "association" of the question pool contents.

That's not to say there are not child prodigies who can do it. Certainly,
I'm sure there are. However, if you took your average 10 or 12 year old and
tried to teach him/her algebra, geometry, etc... it simply isn't going to
happen.

Doesn't matter, for a number of reasons.

First, I disagree that 14 year olds generally "lack the knowledgebase"
- particularly current-day
14 year olds. Having seen the curriculum for the local school district,
the amateur radio exams aren't a problem.

Second, the mere fact of attaining a particular age does not mean the
person can learn algebra, geometry, etc., or has learned it.

Third, young people have been passing the exams for as long as they
existed. Way back in the days of essay exams and drawing diagrams
(1948), a local 9 year old got her Class B license in front of the
local FCC examiner. Granted, an above-average child - but should the
above average be prevented from doing things because everyone can't do
them? (I suggest the short story "Harrison Bergeron" by Kurt Vonnegut).

Fourth, and the big one: What problems in the amateur radio service
have resulted from the lack of an age requirement? Can you or anyone
else name even *one* enforcement action against a radio amateur younger
than 14 years that had anything to do with the youth of the licensee?

Heck, look at the age of the worst Part 97 offenders in recent history,
like Gerritsen.

Thus, the only real way such an individual -- again, generally
speaking -- can pass the theory examinations is thru a) fraud, b) rote
memorization, or c) associative learning of the questions to answers.

Except for a), what's the problem? FCC doesn't care how someone passes
the
exams as long as they don't cheat. Hams older than 14 have passed the
tests by
methods b) and c). If there's something wrong with the exam process, it
applies to
all ages.

How much of the written exam requires algebra and geometry, anyway?
Much of what
I see in the practice exams is regulations (memorization), operating
practices (more
memorization), basic theory (science and a little math).

What would be nice is, perhaps, a license class with very little theory,
mostly regulations, which younger generations could "step into" the hobby
with, gives them a broad spectrum of operating modes on limited frequencies,
and as they mature, they can upgrade into higher a higher license class.
Oops. That almost sounds like the novice license. We know the FCC isn't
going to introduce any MORE license classes, the trend for the past 20?
years has been to REDUCE licensing requirements and make it easier for
anyone to get a ham license.

So what's the problem?

73 de Jim, N2EY