From: on Tues 31 May 2005 15:55

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..

Gee, Quitefine, I HAVE. [too bad for you...]

Hello? You have failure to comprehend what I wrote? Of
course you've failed. Tsk, tsk, tsk, OTHERS have written
and said for decades that "those darn kids just don't
LISTEN to us!" OTHERS have written and said that. :-)

So, Jimmy/Quitefine, ARE YOU A PARENT?

And why is parenthood some kind of "essential" in radio?

Gosh, I've asked before in here..."does one now have to
present a medical doctor's statement of prospective
licensee's sperm count" to VEs? Does one?

I don't think so. The FCC didn't ask for that in 1956
when I got my first (commercial) radio operator license.

You are very wrought-up on this subject of "parenting."
Why? Why for discussion of amateur radio policy?

Oh, I see now...you want to REVIVE and old newsgroup
argument of 1998 and hope to "win" this go-around again!
Yes, you are still (apparently) nursing several severe
"wounds" suffered in newsgroup word "battle." Tsk. Get
medical help. Go see the Sturgeon General, Doc Stebie.


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

An invited speaker at a couple of local "magnet" schools,
Jimmie. Went over rather well. You see, I've had some
experience speaking before groups and can "gauge" an
audience's attention while speaking. That comes from
practice. "Young people" (teen-agers to everyone else)
is just another group having different likes/dislikes
than adults.


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

Tsk, tsk. Some groups remain UNABLE to learn, heads of
incredible density bone, anchored in their brainwashed
BELIEFS. NOBODY human can get through to them... :-)


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

Why do you keep beating the mother of your children,
parent Jimmie? :-)


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

It's very difficult for me to step down to what YOU call
"amateur radio." Been too long in grown-up commercial
radio and electronics.

Tsk, tsk. A radio does NOT operate by different laws of
physics because some government agency designates it as
"amateur." Didn't you learn that in Ivy school?


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?

Tsk, tsk. You are "loading' a question again. :-) You keep
saying something like it is "improper" (or whatever you have in
mind) for me to tell any radio amateur what to do or "what
amateur radio should be. If I say anything remotely associated
with such an act, you mount your figurative high horse and
gallop off in another (misdirection) to do some kind of
figurative battle! Remarkable desire to "do battle" by someone
who never did any military service.

My argument in here is simply to eliminate the morse code test
for a radio license. I have NO desire to "tell you what to do,"
and such a thing you would never obey anyway...NO ONE can tell
Jimmie what to do! :-)

Jimmie boy, what YOU want in automatons is for every ham to
emulate a modem so that they can automatically decode morse
code. You are very, very (almost unnaturally) firm on that,
giving all sorts of specious "reasons" for that "entrance exam"
into narrow amateur bands below 30 MHz.

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?

Tsk, Tsk, TSK! Jimmie implies he has "parenting skills" and
yet he is BLIND to what modern-day teeners DO in their peer
group activities? :-)

"TXT-ing" is a modern FAD amongst teeners, the ability to send
little notes to another, hardly any restrictions, and much
easier to do than the old way with actual paper. It is a FUN
social act for them, a minor rebelliousness against old strict
rules of behavior in class, in assemblies, in any area where
they were not allowed to pass paper notes back and forth. They
can "TXT" with one hand, less observable by teachers or other
adults. It is NOT a "hobby" Jimmie, it is just a thing they DO.


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

Why are you trying to be Admiral-in-Charge of water traffic?

Jimmie, this is a newsgroup for amateur radio policy. Sailing
and power-boat driving is quite another newsgroup.


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

I'm not the one bringing up my 6-year-old comment on amateur
radio minimum age. YOU are. You've done that several times,
twice now after I've said I had not pursued the matter since
1999.


The paradigms of yesterday just DON'T apply today.

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

Are you still beating your wife? :-)


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").

Jimmie, TRY to realize that the real "tribe" is the entire
world of radio communications, and has been ever since 1896.
That "tribe" has DROPPED morse code in favor of other, better,
faster, more reliable communications modes for decades. Even
the international maritime distress and safety frequency of
500 KHz was supplanted by GMDSS by the REAL mariners themselves.
There's no need for morsemanship on 500 KHz to avoid a repeat of
the Titanic disaster. Air traffic has dropped morse on long,
over-water flights; sea traffic now uses HF SSB voice and TORs
for data; the military long since dropped morse code for
communications purposes. In the USA all you have left is some
AUTOMATIC ID machines at VORs and VORTACs and a few LF beacons
that few pilots actually use over land. AUTOMATIC machines,
Jimmie, which can endlessly generate the ID in morse code.

NOBODY is considering "TXT-ing" as any sort of replacement for
modern data modes for written communications. That "test" on
an Entertainment show was deliberately staged to poke fun at
this relatively recent FAD of "TXT-ing." People in the Staff
of the Tonight Show on NBC at Burbank, CA, have informed me of
the intent of that short bit.

Drop the discussion, Jimmie. You haven't "won" any sort of
argument...rather you've helped FABRICATE a non-issue.

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.

Jimmie boy, STOP bringing up that six-year-old argument which
(I perceive) you tried to use as some kind of "character flaw."
Hans Brakob floated the first argument on that in here, we
argued on it, but YOU have to keep bringing it up, bringing it
up, bringing it up. It's like you have intellectual bullemia.
If you must vomit so much please do it someplace else.

YOU are NOT going to "win" OLD arguments that you didn't "win"
some time ago. Quit acting the age of that old Comment of mine
on FCC 98-143. Two little tykes of 6 years got their amateur
radio licenses (Novice and Technician) plus got their pictures
taken with a kindly, grandfatherly-looking VE who "administered"
their tests. It was on the ARRL web page news some time ago.
LET IT GO.

wrote:
From: on Tues 31 May 2005 15:55

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..

Gee, Quitefine, I HAVE. [too bad for you...]

A lie.

Hello? You have failure to comprehend what I wrote? Of
course you've failed. Tsk, tsk, tsk, OTHERS have written
and said for decades that "those darn kids just don't
LISTEN to us!" OTHERS have written and said that.

And you have yet to prove an example of just ONE kid that ever
violated FCC rules requiring FCC intervention.

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

An invited speaker at a couple of local "magnet" schools,
Jimmie. Went over rather well. You see, I've had some
experience speaking before groups and can "gauge" an
audience's attention while speaking. That comes from
practice. "Young people" (teen-agers to everyone else)
is just another group having different likes/dislikes
than adults.

"...speaking before groups..."

An invited speaker to an organized class presentation is NOT child
rearing.

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

It's very difficult for me to step down to what YOU call
"amateur radio." Been too long in grown-up commercial
radio and electronics.

Oh! It's a "step down" now...

In many other posts you've 'expressed" alleged admiration for
Amateur Radio...especially for your ham buddy best man and Gene in NJ.

Were you lying then, or lying now?

Tsk, tsk. A radio does NOT operate by different laws of
physics because some government agency designates it as
"amateur." Didn't you learn that in Ivy school?

Who, Lennie, other than you, has ever suggested otherwise in this
forum?

My argument in here is simply to eliminate the morse code test
for a radio license. I have NO desire to "tell you what to do,"
and such a thing you would never obey anyway...

WHAT AN ABSOLUTE AND AUDACIOUS LIE!

"TXT-ing" is a modern FAD amongst teeners, the ability to send
little notes to another, hardly any restrictions, and much
easier to do than the old way with actual paper. It is a FUN
social act for them, a minor rebelliousness against old strict
rules of behavior in class, in assemblies, in any area where
they were not allowed to pass paper notes back and forth. They
can "TXT" with one hand, less observable by teachers or other
adults. It is NOT a "hobby" Jimmie, it is just a thing they DO.

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...I see!

So...teenaagers sending messages by Morse Code is a
hobby...Teenagers sending messages by text message is "...just a thing
they do..."

Are you still beating your wife?

Are you still lying to yours?

Jimmie, TRY to realize that the real "tribe" is the entire
world of radio communications, and has been ever since 1896.
That "tribe" has DROPPED morse code in favor of other, better,
faster, more reliable communications modes for decades.

There's no "tribes" on the electromagnetic spectrum save for
licenses issued to recognized Tribal agencies by the FCC.

Even the international maritime distress and safety frequency of
500 KHz was supplanted by GMDSS by the REAL mariners themselves.

Ahem...How is this pertinent to Amateur radio?

Drop the discussion, Jimmie. You haven't "won" any sort of
argument...rather you've helped FABRICATE a non-issue.

Hey Jim...

This is Lennie's way of saying "Shut up...I'm embarraased enough
already..."

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.

Jimmie boy, STOP bringing up that six-year-old argument which
(I perceive) you tried to use as some kind of "character flaw."
Hans Brakob floated the first argument on that in here, we
argued on it, but YOU have to keep bringing it up, bringing it
up, bringing it up. It's like you have intellectual bullemia.
If you must vomit so much please do it someplace else.

Then Lennie....

YOU stop bring up ADA...

YOU stop telling us about guys you never knew dying in a fight you
were never in...

YOU stop telling us about your alleged non-Amateur Radio related
"career" as if it were pertinent to the Morse Code issue...It's not...

YOU are NOT going to "win" OLD arguments that you didn't "win"
some time ago. Quit acting the age of that old Comment of mine
on FCC 98-143. Two little tykes of 6 years got their amateur
radio licenses (Novice and Technician) plus got their pictures
taken with a kindly, grandfatherly-looking VE who "administered"
their tests. It was on the ARRL web page news some time ago.
LET IT GO.

He's already won.

You've been discredited over and over, and your snivvelling little
"shut up I don't want to talk about it anymore" rant isn't going to
change things.

If you want things to be "let go", then YOU have to "let go" of
YOUR repetitive, insulting, demeaning behaviour here...We're just as
tired of your insults as you are of us rubbing your nose in them.

Putz.

Steve, K4YZ

wrote:
From: on Tues 31 May 2005 15:55

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..

Gee, Quitefine, I HAVE. [too bad for you...]

You have been a parent, Len? That's news - you've told us
all about your life and never mentioned that.

Hello? You have failure to comprehend what I wrote?

No, I understood it well.

Of
course you've failed. Tsk, tsk, tsk, OTHERS have written
and said for decades that "those darn kids just don't
LISTEN to us!" OTHERS have written and said that. :-)

And you agree with them - even though you have no experience
as a parent. You're lecturing others on things you have no
real experience with.

So, Jimmy/Quitefine, ARE YOU A PARENT?

Suppose I am, Len - would that cause your behavior to change in a
positive way? Or would you simply use that information to make fun of
me?

I suspect the latter.

And why is parenthood some kind of "essential" in radio?

It's not. But when you lecture the newsgroup on "young'uns in ham
radio", your lack of experience is relevant, don't you think?

You make a big deal about others' lack of military service or
other experience - now the shoe is on the other foot.

Gosh, I've asked before in here..."does one now have to
present a medical doctor's statement of prospective
licensee's sperm count" to VEs? Does one?

I don't think so. The FCC didn't ask for that in 1956
when I got my first (commercial) radio operator license.

When you were 24 years old....

You are very wrought-up on this subject of "parenting."
Why? Why for discussion of amateur radio policy?

Look at the subject line.

Oh, I see now...you want to REVIVE and old newsgroup
argument of 1998 and hope to "win" this go-around again!

I won before and I'll win again. But it goes back farther than
1998 and continues into the present.

For example, back in 1996 you wrote:

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

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...?output=gplain

That pretty much says it all - *you* have a problem including young
people. The surreal part is that you're neither a parent nor a radio
amateur.

Yes, you are still (apparently) nursing several severe
"wounds" suffered in newsgroup word "battle."

Not me. I'm not the one shouting, tsking and calling people names.

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

An invited speaker at a couple of local "magnet" schools,
Jimmie. Went over rather well. You see, I've had some
experience speaking before groups and can "gauge" an
audience's attention while speaking. That comes from
practice. "Young people" (teen-agers to everyone else)
is just another group having different likes/dislikes
than adults.

In other words, no. You gave some talks (subject unknown)
but as far as actually teaching a course, where the results
could be measured (testing results), you're again talking
without experience.

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

Tsk, tsk. Some groups remain UNABLE to learn, heads of
incredible density bone, anchored in their brainwashed
BELIEFS. NOBODY human can get through to them... :-)

Seems like the poor workman blaming his tools.

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

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

It's very difficult for me to step down to what YOU call
"amateur radio."

Ah, there you are. Talking down to the audience.

Been too long in grown-up commercial
radio and electronics.

Yet you seek to ban young people from amateur radio - of
which you are not a part.

Your answer indicates what many have long suspected: that you
expect to be instantly recognized as an expert without having
to meet the requirements for a license.

Tsk, tsk. A radio does NOT operate by different laws of
physics because some government agency designates it as
"amateur."

So what? "Physics" isn't the only consideration.

Do you think the rules for the amateur radio service should be the same
as for other radio services?

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?

Tsk, tsk. You are "loading' a question again. :-)

How? You brought up cell phones, not me.

You keep
saying something like it is "improper" (or whatever you
have in
mind) for me to tell any radio amateur what to do or "what
amateur radio should be.

That's simply not true, Len.

I say it's "surreal".

You can lecture and posture all you want. I've never told you
to shut up, either directly or indirectly. But you have told
me and others to do so. Like your classic "feldwebel post"
to K8MN...

If I say anything remotely associated
with such an act, you mount your figurative high horse and
gallop off in another (misdirection) to do some kind of
figurative battle! Remarkable desire to "do battle" by
someone who never did any military service.

See? There you go..


My argument in here is simply to eliminate the morse
code test for a radio license.

Then why do you go off on so many tangents? Like the age-
requirement thing?

I have NO desire to "tell you what to do,"

HAW! That's a good one!

You've told me "what to do" many times here. Even in this very
post.


and such a thing you would never obey anyway...NO
ONE can tell Jimmie what to do! :-)

Jimmie boy,

Why do you call me that, Len?

Do you want to be addressed in similar manner?

Or is it just your desire to insult and demean?

what YOU want in automatons is for every ham to
emulate a modem so that they can automatically decode morse
code.

A modem cannot understand Morse Code, Len.

You are very, very (almost unnaturally) firm on that,
giving all sorts of specious "reasons" for that "entrance
exam" into narrow amateur bands below 30 MHz.

Why is a basic test of Morse Code skill such a problem for
you, Len?

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?

Tsk, Tsk, TSK! Jimmie implies he has "parenting skills" and
yet he is BLIND to what modern-day teeners DO in their peer
group activities? :-)

Your writing is simply unclear, Len.

"TXT-ing" is a modern FAD amongst teeners, the ability
to send
little notes to another, hardly any restrictions, and much
easier to do than the old way with actual paper.

Guess what, Len - people of all ages do text messaging. It's
not just teenagers. For example, if I know a coworker is in a meeting,
and needs some piece of information, I'll send a text message rather
than call. Much less intrusive and the information is already in text
form. Been doing that for *years*.

It is a FUN
social act for them, a minor rebelliousness against old
strict
rules of behavior in class, in assemblies, in any area where
they were not allowed to pass paper notes back and forth.

It's not acceptable behavior in class. Not in the schools I know,
anyway.

They
can "TXT" with one hand, less observable by teachers or other
adults.

Do you think that's a good way to spend class time, Len? Did the kids
text message when you were giving your lecture?

It is NOT a "hobby" Jimmie,

Of course it's a hobby - they do it for fun, it's not required, and
they don't get paid for it. Isn't that the definition?

What's your defintion of "hobby", Len?

it is just a thing they DO.

You wrote:

"Using cell phones as a "hobby" is wrong."

But you don't say why.

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

Jimmie, this is a newsgroup for amateur radio policy.
Sailing
and power-boat driving is quite another newsgroup.

It's an analogy, Len. Sailboats used to be the dominant way
of water transport. Navies used sail, cargo ships used sail,
fishing vessels, explorers, etc. Just like Morse Code.

Now sail has all but disappeared, except in a few special applications
and in "hobby" (pleasure) boating.

Just like Morse Code.

See the analogy?

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

I'm not the one bringing up my 6-year-old comment on amateur
radio minimum age. YOU are. You've done that several times,
twice now after I've said I had not pursued the matter since
1999.

It's more than your comments to FCC in 1999, Len. There's also your
charges of fraud against ARRL and some VEs in the licensing of young
children. There's your posts against those of us who were licensed at
young ages (13 in my case). There's your
post where you wrote:

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

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...?output=gplain

And there's the fact that you don't have a single example of *any*
problems caused by the licensing of young people, yet
you would deny a license to *anyone* under the age of 14.

Why?

The paradigms of yesterday just DON'T apply today.

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

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").

Jimmie, TRY to realize that the real "tribe" is the entire
world of radio communications, and has been ever since 1896.

So?


That "tribe" has DROPPED morse code in favor of other,
better,
faster, more reliable communications modes for decades.

Not true, Len. The maritime services were still using Morse
Code extensively as recently as 1997. Less than a decade
ago.

Besides - *hams* still use Morse Code extensively.

Even
the international maritime distress and safety frequency of
500 KHz was supplanted by GMDSS by the REAL mariners
themselves.

No. It was replaced by the ship owners who wanted to save money on crew
costs.

There's no need for morsemanship on 500 KHz to avoid a
repeat of the Titanic disaster.

So what? Amateurs don't use 500 kHz.

Air traffic has dropped morse on long,
over-water flights; sea traffic now uses HF SSB voice and
TORs
for data; the military long since dropped morse code for
communications purposes. In the USA all you have left is
some
AUTOMATIC ID machines at VORs and VORTACs and a few LF
beacons
that few pilots actually use over land. AUTOMATIC machines,
Jimmie, which can endlessly generate the ID in morse code.

Just like the way sailboats have been mostly replaced by power boats.

NOBODY is considering "TXT-ing" as any sort of replacement
for
modern data modes for written communications.

So? That's not the point.

That "test" on
an Entertainment show was deliberately staged to poke fun at
this relatively recent FAD of "TXT-ing." People in the Staff
of the Tonight Show on NBC at Burbank, CA, have informed me of the intent of that short bit.

The fact is that the Morse Code operators proved the "tribe" to be
wrong.

Drop the discussion, Jimmie.

You previously wrote:

"I have NO desire to "tell you what to do,""

but now you're doing just that!

You're telling me to shut up, Len.

You haven't "won" any sort of
argument...rather you've helped FABRICATE a non-issue.

Wasn't me that told FCC to deny licenses to anyone under 13. It isn't
me that has "trouble with integrating "youngsters" in what is a
primarily _adult_ skill/technique recreational activity."

It isn't me accusing VEs of fraud.

It's *you*, Len.

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.

Jimmie boy,

There you go again. Why do you call names like that, Len?
Is there a reason you can't just call me "Jim", the way I
call you "Len"?

STOP bringing up that six-year-old argument which
(I perceive) you tried to use as some kind of "character
flaw."

There you go, telling me to shut up. Again.

I bring up the issue because it shows your true attitude about
"young'uns in ham radio". (see the subject line). It's right on
the subject.

Hans Brakob floated the first argument on that in here, we
argued on it, but YOU have to keep bringing it up, bringing it up, bringing it up.

Why not? You haven't admitted that you were wrong in the first
place about age limits.

Besides, you bring up the same stuff over and over again. Much
more than I. Like your experience at ADA....

It's like you have intellectual bullemia.
If you must vomit so much please do it someplace else.

In other words, you want me to shut up.

YOU are NOT going to "win" OLD arguments that you
didn't "win" some time ago.

So you think age limits for a ham license are a good idea?

Why?

Quit acting the age of that old Comment of mine
on FCC 98-143.

I'm not the one calling people names, shouting, etc., Len. You are.

Two little tykes of 6 years got their amateur
radio licenses (Novice and Technician) plus got
their pictures
taken with a kindly, grandfatherly-looking VE
who "administered"
their tests. It was on the ARRL web page news some time ago.

And you said there must have been fraud involved. You accused ARRL and
the VEs involved of dishonesty. Right here. That's a fact. Shall I
repost those claims?

LET IT GO.

Why? So the truth is ignored?

Fun fact, Len: Recently, a six-year-old earned her *General* class
license. Code test and all. It was on the ARRL webpage.

I've done a couple of pitches to Boy Scouts touring our Emergency
Management Office in a quest of merit badges. As part of the pitch we
give them a tour of the ham radio area, HF, VHF, UHF, packet, scanners,
3 computers networked together. We simulate a weather drill with check
in's from 20 - 30 miles away. We make HF contacts to show them long
distance comms.

I'd say about one quarter to one fifth of the audience seems truely
interested in ham radio. The rest could care less.Just something they
sit thru to get a merit badge.

Thinking about the hams in our local club and ARES groups I come up with
the following of why people become hams or ARES members.


They are into the technology.
They do some level of it as a career.
They use it as a means to keep in touch with far flung friends and
family who are also hams.
They want to help their community and see ham radio as a way to make
that happen, sometimes becuase no other option exsists due to health
concerns.
They see it as a challenge that they want to conquer.
Mom and / or Dad are hams and they got pushed into it.

Steve
N2UBP

wrote:
From: on Tues 31 May 2005 15:55


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


An invited speaker at a couple of local "magnet" schools,
Jimmie. Went over rather well. You see, I've had some
experience speaking before groups and can "gauge" an
audience's attention while speaking. That comes from
practice. "Young people" (teen-agers to everyone else)
is just another group having different likes/dislikes
than adults.

You just couldn't bring yourself to answer the question, could you
Leonard? Jim didn't ask if you'd been a public speaker.

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


Tsk, tsk. Some groups remain UNABLE to learn, heads of
incredible density bone, anchored in their brainwashed
BELIEFS. NOBODY human can get through to them... :-)

....and some people are simply unable to become good teachers. They
simply have no knack for it. You seem to fall into that category.
Alienating the students doesn't make for an attentive class.


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


It's very difficult for me to step down to what YOU call
"amateur radio." Been too long in grown-up commercial
radio and electronics.

There's part of your problem, Len. The condescension isn't going to win
you many points. Many of us here have been professionally involved in
radio and electronics *and* we're also hams. You're a stuffed shirt and
a non-ham.

Tsk, tsk. A radio does NOT operate by different laws of
physics because some government agency designates it as
"amateur." Didn't you learn that in Ivy school?

You might have a point if all there was to amateur radio was sitting
around discussing radio theory.


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?


My argument in here is simply to eliminate the morse code test
for a radio license. I have NO desire to "tell you what to do,"
and such a thing you would never obey anyway...NO ONE can tell
Jimmie what to do! :-)

1. You want to eliminate morse testing in an endeavor in which you are
not a participant.

2. You don't want to tell anyone what to do.

Those two things look to be mutually exclusive.



I'm not the one bringing up my 6-year-old comment on amateur
radio minimum age. YOU are. You've done that several times,
twice now after I've said I had not pursued the matter since
1999.

Neither have you disavowed your comment. You've not followed up to the
FCC with an "I was wrong about a minimum age for entry into amateur
radio". Not pursuing something further isn't the same as reversing your
views.

The paradigms of yesterday just DON'T apply today.

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

I'm immediately suspicious of anyone who ever uses the term "paradigm".


NOBODY is considering "TXT-ing" as any sort of replacement for
modern data modes for written communications. That "test" on
an Entertainment show was deliberately staged to poke fun at
this relatively recent FAD of "TXT-ing." People in the Staff
of the Tonight Show on NBC at Burbank, CA, have informed me of
the intent of that short bit.

I'm sure the Tonight Show staff check in with you from time to time,
just to make certain that they've got their ducks in a row.

Drop the discussion, Jimmie. You haven't "won" any sort of
argument...rather you've helped FABRICATE a non-issue.

Actually, Leonard, I think Jim has gotten your goat on the issue.


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.


Jimmie boy, STOP bringing up that six-year-old argument which
(I perceive) you tried to use as some kind of "character flaw."
Hans Brakob floated the first argument on that in here, we
argued on it, but YOU have to keep bringing it up, bringing it
up, bringing it up. It's like you have intellectual bullemia.
If you must vomit so much please do it someplace else.

Izzat one of your "Go away" lines, Leonard? I'm sure you'd like folks
to stop bringing up things you've written which appear to have been
boneheaded moves.

YOU are NOT going to "win" OLD arguments that you didn't "win"
some time ago. Quit acting the age of that old Comment of mine
on FCC 98-143. Two little tykes of 6 years got their amateur
radio licenses (Novice and Technician) plus got their pictures
taken with a kindly, grandfatherly-looking VE who "administered"
their tests. It was on the ARRL web page news some time ago.
LET IT GO.

You intimated at the time that they must have cheated in order to obtain
their licenses. You stated that you didn't believe that "CHILDREN"
should be permitted to operate amateur radio stations without
supervision. You commented to the FCC that their should be a minimum
entry age for amateur radio even though 1) there is no record of a
problem with adolescent licensees and 2) you have nothing whatever to do
with amateur radio.

Dave K8MN

wrote in message
ups.com...
From: on Tues 31 May 2005 15:55

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..

Gee, Quitefine, I HAVE. [too bad for you...]

Hello? You have failure to comprehend what I wrote? Of
course you've failed. Tsk, tsk, tsk, OTHERS have written
and said for decades that "those darn kids just don't
LISTEN to us!" OTHERS have written and said that. :-)

So, Jimmy/Quitefine, ARE YOU A PARENT?

And why is parenthood some kind of "essential" in radio?

Gosh, I've asked before in here..."does one now have to
present a medical doctor's statement of prospective
licensee's sperm count" to VEs? Does one?

I don't think so. The FCC didn't ask for that in 1956
when I got my first (commercial) radio operator license.

You are very wrought-up on this subject of "parenting."
Why? Why for discussion of amateur radio policy?

Oh, I see now...you want to REVIVE and old newsgroup
argument of 1998 and hope to "win" this go-around again!
Yes, you are still (apparently) nursing several severe
"wounds" suffered in newsgroup word "battle." Tsk. Get
medical help. Go see the Sturgeon General, Doc Stebie.


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

An invited speaker at a couple of local "magnet" schools,
Jimmie. Went over rather well. You see, I've had some
experience speaking before groups and can "gauge" an
audience's attention while speaking. That comes from
practice. "Young people" (teen-agers to everyone else)
is just another group having different likes/dislikes
than adults.


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

Tsk, tsk. Some groups remain UNABLE to learn, heads of
incredible density bone, anchored in their brainwashed
BELIEFS. NOBODY human can get through to them... :-)


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

Why do you keep beating the mother of your children,
parent Jimmie? :-)


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

It's very difficult for me to step down to what YOU call
"amateur radio." Been too long in grown-up commercial
radio and electronics.

Tsk, tsk. A radio does NOT operate by different laws of
physics because some government agency designates it as
"amateur." Didn't you learn that in Ivy school?


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?

Tsk, tsk. You are "loading' a question again. :-) You keep
saying something like it is "improper" (or whatever you have in
mind) for me to tell any radio amateur what to do or "what
amateur radio should be. If I say anything remotely associated
with such an act, you mount your figurative high horse and
gallop off in another (misdirection) to do some kind of
figurative battle! Remarkable desire to "do battle" by someone
who never did any military service.

My argument in here is simply to eliminate the morse code test
for a radio license. I have NO desire to "tell you what to do,"
and such a thing you would never obey anyway...NO ONE can tell
Jimmie what to do! :-)

Jimmie boy, what YOU want in automatons is for every ham to
emulate a modem so that they can automatically decode morse
code. You are very, very (almost unnaturally) firm on that,
giving all sorts of specious "reasons" for that "entrance exam"
into narrow amateur bands below 30 MHz.

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?

Tsk, Tsk, TSK! Jimmie implies he has "parenting skills" and
yet he is BLIND to what modern-day teeners DO in their peer
group activities? :-)

"TXT-ing" is a modern FAD amongst teeners, the ability to send
little notes to another, hardly any restrictions, and much
easier to do than the old way with actual paper. It is a FUN
social act for them, a minor rebelliousness against old strict
rules of behavior in class, in assemblies, in any area where
they were not allowed to pass paper notes back and forth. They
can "TXT" with one hand, less observable by teachers or other
adults. It is NOT a "hobby" Jimmie, it is just a thing they DO.


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

Why are you trying to be Admiral-in-Charge of water traffic?

Jimmie, this is a newsgroup for amateur radio policy. Sailing
and power-boat driving is quite another newsgroup.


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

I'm not the one bringing up my 6-year-old comment on amateur
radio minimum age. YOU are. You've done that several times,
twice now after I've said I had not pursued the matter since
1999.


The paradigms of yesterday just DON'T apply today.

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

Are you still beating your wife? :-)


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").

Jimmie, TRY to realize that the real "tribe" is the entire
world of radio communications, and has been ever since 1896.
That "tribe" has DROPPED morse code in favor of other, better,
faster, more reliable communications modes for decades. Even
the international maritime distress and safety frequency of
500 KHz was supplanted by GMDSS by the REAL mariners themselves.
There's no need for morsemanship on 500 KHz to avoid a repeat of
the Titanic disaster. Air traffic has dropped morse on long,
over-water flights; sea traffic now uses HF SSB voice and TORs
for data; the military long since dropped morse code for
communications purposes. In the USA all you have left is some
AUTOMATIC ID machines at VORs and VORTACs and a few LF beacons
that few pilots actually use over land. AUTOMATIC machines,
Jimmie, which can endlessly generate the ID in morse code.

NOBODY is considering "TXT-ing" as any sort of replacement for
modern data modes for written communications. That "test" on
an Entertainment show was deliberately staged to poke fun at
this relatively recent FAD of "TXT-ing." People in the Staff
of the Tonight Show on NBC at Burbank, CA, have informed me of
the intent of that short bit.

Drop the discussion, Jimmie. You haven't "won" any sort of
argument...rather you've helped FABRICATE a non-issue.

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.

Jimmie boy, STOP bringing up that six-year-old argument which
(I perceive) you tried to use as some kind of "character flaw."
Hans Brakob floated the first argument on that in here, we
argued on it, but YOU have to keep bringing it up, bringing it
up, bringing it up. It's like you have intellectual bullemia.
If you must vomit so much please do it someplace else.

YOU are NOT going to "win" OLD arguments that you didn't "win"
some time ago. Quit acting the age of that old Comment of mine
on FCC 98-143. Two little tykes of 6 years got their amateur
radio licenses (Novice and Technician) plus got their pictures
taken with a kindly, grandfatherly-looking VE who "administered"
their tests. It was on the ARRL web page news some time ago.
LET IT GO.




--
The correctness of the original opinion is directly proportional to
the length of the attempted rebuttal

Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
From: on Tues 31 May 2005 15:55


Drop the discussion, Jimmie. You haven't "won" any sort of
argument...rather you've helped FABRICATE a non-issue.

Actually, Leonard, I think Jim has gotten your goat on the
issue.

Actually, Dave, I'm not trying to get anyone's goat. The subject is
about "young'uns in ham radio", and it's obvious that things
like parenting, teaching, and age limits for a license are right
on-subject.

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.

The USA has never had such an age limit. Some other countries,
like Canada, had them at one time but got rid of them.

Jimmie boy, STOP bringing up that six-year-old
argument which
(I perceive) you tried to use as some kind of "character
flaw."
Hans Brakob floated the first argument on that in here, we
argued on it, but YOU have to keep bringing it up,
bringing it
up, bringing it up. It's like you have intellectual
bullemia.
If you must vomit so much please do it someplace else.

Izzat one of your "Go away" lines, Leonard?

It's a "shut up" line, Dave. Not as obvious as the classic
"feldwebel post", but that's what it means nonetheless.

I'm sure you'd like folks
to stop bringing up things you've written which appear to
have been boneheaded moves.

YOU are NOT going to "win" OLD arguments that you
didn't "win"
some time ago. Quit acting the age of that old
Comment of mine
on FCC 98-143. Two little tykes of 6 years got
their amateur
radio licenses (Novice and Technician) plus got
their pictures
taken with a kindly, grandfatherly-looking VE
who "administered"
their tests. It was on the ARRL web page news
some time ago.
LET IT GO.

You intimated at the time that they must have cheated
in order to obtain their licenses.

IIRC, Dave, the claim was that the children could not
have obtained their licenses honestly - that they
must have gotten some "help" from the VEs. Len
claimed "very mild fraud" in the whole process.

Of course Len wasn't there, doesn't know the people
involved, and bases his opinion on what some teacher
told him about the reading skills of a six-year-old.
That the children might have passed the tests honestly
was dismissed by Len.

btw, a six-year-old earned her General a year or so ago.

How the example of the six-year-olds translates into an
age limit of 14 has never been explained.

The fact is that if someone gets enough right answers on
the written test, they get the credit.

You stated that you didn't believe that "CHILDREN"
should be permitted to operate amateur radio stations without
supervision.

That would include folks like me as a Novice. With my homebrew
transmitter.

Why would Len want to keep young folks out of ham radio?

Here's one possibility:

Back in 1996, ARRL had Readex conduct a survey of 1500 amateurs.
One results display showed the support for code testing in
relation to the age of the amateur responding to the survey.

The group that showed the most positive support for code testing
(85%!) was the *youngest* age group.

Jim Hampton wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:

Mike Coslo wrote:

wrote:

. . .


On the other hand, I believe that we should have a good
mix of ages.

Sure - but how much is enough? If, say, 10% of the US amateur
population were under the age of 21, would that be enough?

What "dire fate" would befall ham radio if there wasn't a single
licensee under 21? What do they actaully bring to hobby which is so
important?? Sorry, makes no sense, I just don't get it.

If it's a numbers game why not shift gears and recruit retirees instead
of chasing kids? The retirees are far more independent than kids,
they're more mature, on average they don't care about nonsense like
instant gratification and peer pressure and they have the time the kids
don't have. And in most cases they also have the money the kids don't
have.

w3rv



Kelly,

I think we're batting our gums over nothing. The original post, in my mind,
hit the nail on the head. Technical folks seem to be almost unwanted in the
United States.

In fact, that was my main point.



One reason for amateur radio (at least in the past) was to
attract the technically oriented and hopefully some would persue their
interest and become engineers.

Engineers don't make tons of money these days. Skilled trades folks are
almost unwanted. I had to laugh, there were ads for toolmakers (a number of
years minimum experience) that ran $10.00 to $12.00 per hour. I just saw an
ad for a parking lot attendent at $11.00 per hour. Of course, the
requirements for that job were tough. Almost as tough as amateur radio
requirements. Not only did you need a high school diploma (or ged, or
equivalent experience), you had to be able to make change without the use of
a computer or calculator!

Don't worry Jim. We Americans cam be the parking lot attendants for the
world after they pass us by



Meanwhile, Russia launches Direct TVs latest hi-definition satellite, China
does the manufacturing.

We park the cars and staff the fast food stores. And listen to bitchin
cool mu5ic and have street cred. wow

Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:

Mike Coslo wrote:

wrote:

. . .


On the other hand, I believe that we should have a good
mix of ages.

Sure - but how much is enough? If, say, 10% of the US amateur
population were under the age of 21, would that be enough?

What "dire fate" would befall ham radio if there wasn't a single
licensee under 21? What do they actaully bring to hobby which is so
important?? Sorry, makes no sense, I just don't get it.

If it's a numbers game why not shift gears and recruit retirees instead
of chasing kids? The retirees are far more independent than kids,
they're more mature, on average they don't care about nonsense like
instant gratification and peer pressure and they have the time the kids
don't have. And in most cases they also have the money the kids don't
have.

w3rv



I've often suggested recruiting people in the 40 to 50 year old range.
Their kids are grown or nearly so. They have a better income than when they
were younger and a little more free time than when they were younger. And
they are still young enough to have energy and enthusiasm for new
activities.
Thats what worked for me. I had some free time with my kid going into
high school, and needed something more cerebral. For all it's fun, Ice
Hockey isn't a mental thing. Got my first license at 46 y.o.

- Mike KB3EIA -

wrote:
wrote:
From: on Tues 31 May 2005 15:55

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..

Gee, Quitefine, I HAVE. [too bad for you...]

You have been a parent, Len? That's news - you've told us
all about your life and never mentioned that.

Hello? You have failure to comprehend what I wrote?

No, I understood it well.

Of
course you've failed. Tsk, tsk, tsk, OTHERS have written
and said for decades that "those darn kids just don't
LISTEN to us!" OTHERS have written and said that. :-)

And you agree with them - even though you have no experience
as a parent. You're lecturing others on things you have no
real experience with.

So, Jimmy/Quitefine, ARE YOU A PARENT?

Suppose I am, Len - would that cause your behavior to change in a
positive way? Or would you simply use that information to make fun of
me?

I suspect the latter.

And why is parenthood some kind of "essential" in radio?

It's not. But when you lecture the newsgroup on "young'uns in ham
radio", your lack of experience is relevant, don't you think?

Lennie's not a parent, if we follow his own logic.

Lennie has repeatedly insisted that if I did certain things in the
Armed Forces, then I would be quick to brag about them and discuss them
readily. Since HE does it, EVERYONE must do it too.....

That's not the truth, but that's what Lennie has insisted.

Therefore, that being the case, and Lennie having failed to
discuss his successful procreation and subsequent rearing of offspring,
we can conclude that it never happened.

You are very wrought-up on this subject of "parenting."
Why? Why for discussion of amateur radio policy?

Look at the subject line.

Lennie claims to be an engineer, but can't seem to make notes of
the "details"...

Oh, I see now...you want to REVIVE and old newsgroup
argument of 1998 and hope to "win" this go-around again!

I won before and I'll win again. But it goes back farther than
1998 and continues into the present.

For example, back in 1996 you wrote:

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

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...?output=gplain

That pretty much says it all - *you* have a problem including young
people. The surreal part is that you're neither a parent nor a radio
amateur.

Lennie doesn't let little things like "no practical experience"
keep him from expressing an "expert" opinion on a great many range of
issues.

Your answer indicates what many have long suspected: that you
expect to be instantly recognized as an expert without having
to meet the requirements for a license.

It was suggested to Lennie that he take some of this energy and
submit a proposal to the FCC to allow "engineers" either a free pass
or some sort of a "bridge" exam to get licensure.

Never did it.

Tsk, tsk. A radio does NOT operate by different laws of
physics because some government agency designates it as
"amateur."

So what? "Physics" isn't the only consideration.

And Lennie's been asked to please show where ANYone, other than
him, has made said issue of it...

No answers.

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?

Tsk, Tsk, TSK! Jimmie implies he has "parenting skills" and
yet he is BLIND to what modern-day teeners DO in their peer
group activities?

Your writing is simply unclear, Len.

It's also assinine.

Would Lennie suggest that because people drive cars and trucks for
"business" that no one may then drive, maintain or collect them for a
"hobby"...?!?!

Lennie has AOL...Just put the word "cell phone" into the "hobbies"
search criteria of the "Members Directory" and watch the hits flow in.

"TXT-ing" is a modern FAD amongst teeners, the ability
to send
little notes to another, hardly any restrictions, and much
easier to do than the old way with actual paper.

Guess what, Len - people of all ages do text messaging. It's
not just teenagers. For example, if I know a coworker is in a meeting,
and needs some piece of information, I'll send a text message rather
than call. Much less intrusive and the information is already in text
form. Been doing that for *years*.

Once upon a time the idea that "teeners" using spark gaps and old
Model T ignition coils for "communications" would be nothing more than
a fad...

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

Jimmie, this is a newsgroup for amateur radio policy.
Sailing
and power-boat driving is quite another newsgroup.

It's an analogy, Len. Sailboats used to be the dominant way
of water transport. Navies used sail, cargo ships used sail,
fishing vessels, explorers, etc. Just like Morse Code.

Now sail has all but disappeared, except in a few special applications
and in "hobby" (pleasure) boating.

Just like Morse Code.

See the analogy?

He can't see his an...uh...nose. How can he see an
"analogy"...?!?!

Drop the discussion, Jimmie.

You previously wrote:

"I have NO desire to "tell you what to do,""

but now you're doing just that!

You're telling me to shut up, Len.

And this kind of behaviour is unknown from him...?!?!

Jimmie boy,

There you go again. Why do you call names like that, Len?
Is there a reason you can't just call me "Jim", the way I
call you "Len"?

That might make you his "peer", Jim...

Can't have that!

STOP bringing up that six-year-old argument which
(I perceive) you tried to use as some kind of "character
flaw."

There you go, telling me to shut up. Again.

I bring up the issue because it shows your true attitude about
"young'uns in ham radio". (see the subject line). It's right on
the subject.

He wasn't a Ham at a young age, ergo NO one should be a Ham at ANY
age...

Two little tykes of 6 years got their amateur
radio licenses (Novice and Technician) plus got
their pictures
taken with a kindly, grandfatherly-looking VE
who "administered"
their tests. It was on the ARRL web page news some time ago.

And you said there must have been fraud involved. You accused ARRL and
the VEs involved of dishonesty. Right here. That's a fact. Shall I
repost those claims?

LET IT GO.

Why? So the truth is ignored?

So Lennie can quit getting his nose rubbed in yet another of his
fallicies.

Fun fact, Len: Recently, a six-year-old earned her *General* class
license. Code test and all. It was on the ARRL webpage.

Our local club recently added two new licensees...both 9....No
record, but yet more evidence that there ARE "young 'uns" entering
Amateur Radio.

73

Steve, K4YZ