Joe Cameltoe ) writes:
On Sat, 28 May 2005 19:42:14 -0400, Mike Coslo wrote:

Many people lament that there is not enough interest in Ham radio by
young people.

There are often many reasons given for this deficiency, and somewhat
less "fixes".

One of the reasons that is given very often is that Amateur radio is in
some sort of competition with the Internet. Let us look at this theory.

What is the competition between the two? In order to use the internet,
one must of course have a computer. It must be connected to the
internet, through one of several methods. Once the person has learned to
turn on the computer, open a few programs or so, they have the
necessary skills to work the internet.

Amateur radio on the other hand, requires that a radio be used, which
requires some skill in operating. An antenna system needs to be
connected to this radio. Whereas it is possible to have everything set
up for the Ham, most young people do not have the resources to have
someone set up their system. Coupled with the possibility of putting an
antenna in operation that only costs a few dollars, or even less if the
youngster has good scrounging skills, the likelihood is that they would
design and put up their own antenna, another skill needed.

So there is a large difference in the skills needed for the two hobbies.

Cell phones as competition? While there is a temptation to snipe "Get
Real!", I'll address those too.

What would make a person decide to take up Cell phone use as a hobby?
Cell phones allow you to talk to people that you know (for the most
part) and operate in the same manner as a regular telephone, save that
you take the cell with you, and you are generally tied in the same
building with a standard telephone. It's hard to imagine someone doing
that as a hobby, although there are a lot of people who spend a lot of
time using them.

So what makes a youngster decide to become a Ham?

We can try using the input of those who became Hams at a young age.
Most of what I have heard is that the person was very interested in the
technical aspects involved with getting on the air. Making antennas,
building rigs, and getting them on the air was a big part of the attraction.

In the end, I believe that it is young people that have a technical
interest that will likely become Hams.

And that, I believe, is the crux of the issue.

America is not a place that encourages those who might be thinking of a
technical career. We have a tendency to encourage a more "pop culture"
outlook, which as often as not discounts actual learning for "street
cred", and actually turns the smart person into an object of ridicule.
There are levels, and there are levels. If a person is intelligent, and
wants a good livelihood, you will find careers that are acceptable. You
can be a movie star, or perhaps a lawyer. A whole spectrum follows, but
engineering and the technical fields are not very high on that list.

How often is the Techie portrayed as a sort of Bill Nye, the science
guy type (at best). How about the smart woman who takes off her glasses
and suddenly becomes the hot babe? Professor Frink on "The Simpsons"?
Pop culture is not kind to the technical types.

My experiences with programs like "bring your sons and daughters to
work day" shows that almost none of the kids is even thinking of a
technical field. A lot want to be lawyers.

Once in the past, we were scared into thinking that maybe science and
technology was maybe not such a bad thing. That happened when the
commies launched Sputnik. Suddenly it seemed important that at least
some of our kids decided to work in the sciences. Hopefully we will
decide that again without having to be shocked into it.

I am pretty firmly convinced that until we stop catering to the least
common denominator, until we stop marginalizing the technically and
scientifically inclined, we will not find many youngsters who want to
come into our hobby.

- Mike KB3EIA -


The answer is simple:

They're lazy and have NO imaginations. They want the easy, don't
have to do/learn anything way. Look at all the retards on thier cellphones
EVERY FREAKING MINUTE of the day.

The problem with that is that you've just alienated the very group
that needs to be part of amateur radio (for the hobby, for them).
YOu can't go into a room full of people you want to attract and
call them names.

I do argue that the failure of amateur radio to attract young
people is because we a) aren't trying and b)don't know how.

The minute you characterize all the young as some monolithic group,
you are saying you don't know the kids, and if you don't know
them, then there's no way of bridging that gap. I'm not sure how
we do it, but I do know that one has to get into their heads to
reach them.

Keep in mind that decades ago, amateur radio was hardly a mainstreem
interest among the population. SOme would be interested, many would
not. There'd be people like you back then characterizing the young
people, minus the cellphones, basically saying the same thing. Ultimately,
little has changed.

Michael VE2BVW

From: (Michael Black) on Sun 29 May 2005
16:48


Joe Cameltoe ) writes:
On Sat, 28 May 2005 19:42:14 -0400, Mike Coslo wrote:

My experiences with programs like "bring your sons and daughters to
work day" shows that almost none of the kids is even thinking of a
technical field. A lot want to be lawyers.

Once in the past, we were scared into thinking that maybe science and
technology was maybe not such a bad thing. That happened when the
commies launched Sputnik. Suddenly it seemed important that at least
some of our kids decided to work in the sciences. Hopefully we will
decide that again without having to be shocked into it.

I am pretty firmly convinced that until we stop catering to the least
common denominator, until we stop marginalizing the technically and
scientifically inclined, we will not find many youngsters who want to
come into our hobby.

- Mike KB3EIA -

The answer is simple:

They're lazy and have NO imaginations. They want the easy, don't
have to do/learn anything way. Look at all the retards on thier cellphones
EVERY FREAKING MINUTE of the day.

The problem with that is that you've just alienated the very group
that needs to be part of amateur radio (for the hobby, for them).
YOu can't go into a room full of people you want to attract and
call them names.

I do argue that the failure of amateur radio to attract young
people is because we a) aren't trying and b)don't know how.

Good, thoughtful commentary, Michael.

Part of the problem is the evident posturing of some on these
newsgroups, the self-importance that some generate about
their particular hobby interest. A few become "insulted"
when others talk about a "hobby," yet that is what it is and
that is what it has always been. A hobby, per se, is not
a derogatory label...except to the posturing self-important
individuals who fantasize that they more than they are.

Those who are IN a particular activity are often guilty of
tunnel-vision that focusses too much on their own favored
interest. Once locked into that "camera setting," they've
lost their field of view on a wide panorama.

The minute you characterize all the young as some monolithic group,
you are saying you don't know the kids, and if you don't know
them, then there's no way of bridging that gap. I'm not sure how
we do it, but I do know that one has to get into their heads to
reach them.

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.

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.

"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.

Keep in mind that decades ago, amateur radio was hardly a mainstreem
interest among the population. SOme would be interested, many would
not.

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

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.

All of electronics can be a technological marvel which is
found truly fascinating by thousands upon thousands. That
extends much farther than just HF radio in hobbies. Robotics
is one huge and growing hobby area right now. "Computing"
already has dozens of major hobby groups within it, all made
possible by desktop sized computers with enormous capabilities
that didn't exist two decades ago.

Devotees of amateur HF "operating" tend to look down their
noses at those "other" hobbies, posturing that "they don't
have the smarts to do the 'great' things that 'we' did"
yet few are able to comprehend that those "other" hobbies
require as much or more intellect than theirs.

There'd be people like you back then characterizing the young
people, minus the cellphones, basically saying the same thing.

Heh heh heh. True enough. Way too many conveniently
neglect the fact that they were young once and "guilty" of
the very same faults of their generation.

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.
Using cell phones as a "hobby" is wrong. Semi-private
communications is a social group act, not a hobby.

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. 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. 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."

Ultimately, little has changed.

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

The paradigms of yesterday just DON'T apply today. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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

From: "K4YZ" on Wed 1 Jun 2005 23:00

[the lonely sentinel bursts out in rage and anger, unable to
control his emotions...mighty flashes issue from his red pilot
lights...he raises his USMC bayonetted soldering iron and
strikes! Whiff...the unconnected strike punctures the empty
air...]

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

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.

That's simply untrue, Stebie.

Stebie NEVER worked HF communications in the USMC. Indeed, he
was NEVER in any sort of radio communications tasks as a
helicopter ground maintenance crew.

Stebie still hasn't verified his CLAIM of being "Assistant"
NCOIC at a USMC MARS station.

The United States military used NON-morse HF communications
for the major tactical/strategic radio communications since
1948. [Stebie wasn't even conceived until much later...]

Thousands of men (and a few women) have worked in HF
communications in the military. I was one of those thousands
IN the military working on HF communications, "getting the
messages through" and on a 24/7 basis. Stebie, the Avenging
Angle of Dearth, has NOT. Stebie is jealous, poor thing.

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.

Stebie, in his RAGE and ANGER, has lost his bearings on what
this newsgroup is about. Hint: It is about radio amateur
policy matters. Pediatrics is NOT the subject.

Stebie has expressed an inordinate desire to talk about others'
families, especially WIVES. This newsgroup is NOT about
Stebie's fantasies about others' marital relationships nor is
it about SEX. Yet, Stebie keeps on mentioning his "enemies"
(in the newsgroup and probably everywhere) as "penis head,"
using a Yiddish pejorative (even when he is unfamiliar with
Judaism nor its Central European ethnic group of Yiddish.

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"...

Tsk, tsk, tsk. Both "Quitefine" and Stebie (Assistant NCOIC
of Rage and Anger among the PCTA) don't understand that
"young ones" are not necessarily just their "own" offspring.

Stebie, the self-appointed "ethnic puritan" of this newsgroup,
couldn't make it on his own as a Purchasing Agent of a small
electronics company, yet claims/postures/implies that he
"knows" all about radio-electronics engineering, what the
engineers know, what the engineers do, etc., etc., etc.
CLAIMS. Brags. Posturing. Stebie's forte' as a mighty
macho morseman.

I make no "claim" of engineering. I AM one and have been for
many years. My professional occupation.

Stebie is a NURSE. "Quitefine" (James Miccolis) will NOT
reveal what HE works on or for...other than letting slip once
that he "works in vehicular technology" (in one of his
comments on one of the 18 Petitions for amateur radio
restructuring. "Quitefine" is NOT a member of the worldwide
Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE), a
professional association.

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.

The "surreal" part of Miccolis and Robeson's diatribes is that:

1. No pediatrician is required to be a "parent." There is NO
such "requirement" in any academic organization to "be a
parent" in ANY degreed/titled work involving children OR
procreation of children.

2. "Quitefine" (Miccolis) seems to disregard laws of physics
in that ALL radios work by the SAME physical laws,
regardless of human designations as to their application.
[inconceivable that a claimed double-degree individual
would insist that ONLY licensed radio amateurs (who have
obtained a federal merit badge only in amateurism) can
express any opinion at all.

3. In the United States of America, ANY citizen has the RIGHT
to comment to their government on ANY law or regulation
REGARDLESS of whether or not they have any "license" or
other "authorization" to "operate" under some rules or
regulations.

4. Neither Miccolis ("Quitefine") nor Robeson have ANY
"authority" to RULE on U.S. amateur radio regulations,
yet the seek to bar, to subjugate, to eliminate ANYONE
BUT licensed radio amateurs from even talking about it.
Apparently those two control freaks do not understand
that NO FCC Commissioner or staff member is "required"
to possess an amateur radio license in order to offcially
regulate U.S. amateur radio.

5. Miccolis-"Quitefine" has NOT YET stated how many offspring
HE has parented. He implies he has but the number, gender,
are all big unknowns. Robeson has only mentioned his
"offspring" from his second marriage...neglecting any
mention of "offspring" from his first, failed marriage.
Regardless of the NON-applicability of "offspring" as
the ONLY "authoritative experience" in discussing young
people, they implore (if not directly order) "offspring"
as a "prime requirement" to talk about young people.


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, tsk. A NON-applicable "request" NOT required.

That so-called "request" was simply a MISDIRECTION to try to
stop any further talk on ELIMINATION OF THE MORSE CODE TEST
for an amateur radio license.

As is quite obvious under any U.S. citizens' RIGHTS under the
Constitution (of the United States, NOT the ARRL), "licensure"
in amateur radio is NOT REQUIRED to talk about GETTING INTO
amateur radio. To reiterate, NO FCC Commissioner or Staffer
is required to possess any amateur radio license in order to
lawfully regulate U.S. amateur radio.

Both of these control freaks have been invited to take their
"authority" and "shove it up their I/O ports."

They never did it. However, they might have...and enjoyed 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.

TSK, TSK, TSK. MANY ANSWERS. Apparently these two control
freaks do not have sufficient reading comprehension...or have
a psychological inability to separate their fantasies from
reality. They are continuously "making issues" of such
"clubhouse rules" where only THEY can "rule" yet neither one
has legal/lawful/actual authority to rule.


Your writing is simply unclear, Len.

It's also assinine.

Stebie, the Avenging Angle of Dearth, the newsgroup's
counterpart to Elfren Saldivar, can only "reply" with a series
of Personal Insults...which is little more than his RAGE and
ANGER and personal frustration showing clearly.

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"...?!?!

Stebie is still unable to focus on the newsgroup subject.
Matters of vehicular transportation do NOT belong here.


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...

"SPARK," technically damped impulse oscillation, is FORBIDDEN
by law.

Neither "Quitefine" nor Stebie were alive in the early days
of radio when "Spark" was all that was available to amateur
radio. They've only READ about it, could NOT have used it
LEGALLY.


See the analogy?

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

Stebie is overly concerned with anal-genital areas of the
body. Stebie is overly concerned with other people's
wives, including desires to talk about their sexual or
marital practices.

This is NOT the newsgroup to talk about those things.



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!

PCTA Extra Double Standard. "Quitefine" and Stebie both
"allow" name-calling such as "PUTZ" and "gutless coward"
to others, yet object to their aliases or diminutive forms
of their given names.

Miccolis is NOT my "peer." He has not identified his actual
place of employment, has not identified his own "parenthood"
(which he REQUIRES of others), and has claimed to be a
"radio manufacturer." Tsk, he is not even a member of any
professional association. Stebie is a NURSE, has not even
worked IN any electronics engineering position...nor has he
done HF communications while in the military.


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?

Tsk, tsk. I wrote, some time ago, that the ARRL "sins by omission."
They do so often, especially in their publications on the history
of radio. The ARRL over-emphasizes (from omitting other workers
in radio) the "role" that radio amateurs have played in the
evolution of radio communications.

The first use of Single Sideband techniques was in long-distance
wired telephony. The first consistent use of SSB in HF
communications was by commercial and government organizations
beginning in the 1930s...and continues to this day. The ARRL
seems to have lost touch with the activities of commercial and
government users of SSB and imply that "SSB pioneering" was
done by radio amateurs in the 1950s, two decades after the fact.
One case of intellectual fraud...but it serves the purpose of
making hobbyist hams feel "important." They (and many self-
important hams) point to the Strategic Air Command about SSB
and forget that such was SINGLE-CHANNEL SSB, something already
done prior to WW2, dropped before WW2 due to lack of frequency
stability techniques to keep costs low.

The ARRL has implied that quartz crystal frequency stability
owes its existance (especially after WW2) to "efforts by hams"
(in more pioneering). They neglect an overall electronics
industry need for stable frequency control. They neglect the
tremendous effort on wartime production of quartz crystal units
by the electronics industry - A million quartz units a month
in the last three years of WW2 and a national priority second
only to the Manhattan Project. By not mentioning what has
been known in the electronics industry they imply that hams
are responsible for the pioneering...which tells ham hobbyists
nice emotional things that make them feel important.

The first use of VHF FM in mobile communications was pioneered
by commercial companies (Link and Motorola) and a few police
departments prior to WW2. That was vastly increased by the U.S.
military during WW2. The EM spectrum from VHF and up was opened
by the whole radio world just before and certainly after WW2.
Real history. The ARRL in QST magazine still refers to that
huge part of the EM spectrum as "the world above 50 MHz" as if
it is a sort of ghetto.

Where the HF part of the EM spectrum was once a major carrier
of long-distance communications (especially over water), that
is now greatly reduced, supplanted by geostationary sattelite
radio relay, under-water digital fiber cable (using optically-
"pumped" non-electronic amplifiers) carrying thousands of
comm channels, troposcatter low microwave multi-channel beyond
the line of sight distance. Users on HF have gone to single-
channel SSB voice and TORs (Teleprinter Over Radio) data instead
of manual morse code modes. The U.S. military no longer requires
morsemanship for any communications occupation specialties.
Still, the ARRL features HF communications, especially by "CW"
as a "prime" communications spectrum...and the consign the
"world above 50 MHz" to a sort of ghetto for those of lesser
"ability." The ARRL loves to emphasize morsemanship as the
epitome of amateur radio "excellence" to satisfy the old men
at the League and the membership who want to feel good and
"important in radio."

The ARRL still want to ignore the obvious fact of the
overwhelmingly-most-increasing class in amateur radio being
Technicians. They want to gloss over the fact that most of
those are NO-CODE-TEST Technicians. That pleases the old
man hams who still think that morsemanship is "important" in
radio. Those old men (chronologically or in mindset) want to
fantasize their dreams of "being somebody." They like the
words that feed their fantasies...and that lets the League
hang onto them and keep them members.

There are several more subjects on radio history that can be
shown, but the fantasizers and imaginers and those who want
to posture about their "importance" will object and call names.
Their "intellectual" response is to bring out idolated cases
that are supposed to "refute" challenges of the actual
sinning by omission by the mighty League.


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

Irrelevant, relatively isolated case. Apparently neither one
is the offspring of Stebie - who once touted the "ability" and
"dedication" of his own 9-year-old.

So, all you mental nine-year-olds, feel good about your sub-
teen intellectual prowess on passing the TEST. Continue to
scamper about your "private clubhouse" and generally behave
emotionally like kiddies about your "superiorities." Sooner
or later your kinder-kind MIGHT grow up. [I'm losing my
optimism on that]

The rest of us IN the radio-electronics industry will continue
doing our adult things. We will pat you on the head when you
are nice and spank you when you misbehave. Go to your room.

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