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.