From: on Oct 30, 5:50 am

wrote:
wrote:
On 28 Oct 2005 18:55:32 -0700, wrote:
wrote:


Len uses multiple names in his posts. I'm not sure who he means by
"Jimmie-James". Is it me, or Jim Weir (who posts as "RSTEngineering")
or somebody else?

Then you must be dim-witted.

Nah...he's only in a truss over trying to misdirect the subject
thread on all about how we should all be FORMAL and RESPECTFUL
to the mighty macho morsemen extras.

Maybe I'll get a tuxedo and wear one when posting to these
mighty macho motivated morsemen? Now if they would only
specify white-tie or black-tie? :-)


If he means me, *why* can't he just call me Jim, or N2EY?

All this confusion, then you go ahead and answer af if it were you he
was referring to. That is the lie that Mark refers to.

Further reinforcement of the misdirection onto Jimmie's demand
for FORMALITY and RESPECTFULNESS...when it comes to HIM. :-)


And it's a fact that I'm not "all for children VOTING in elections".

Why would you care? He's not talking about what you are in favor
of, is he?

Poor Jimmie. I dropped that "age requirement for amateur licensees"
six years ago and he just can't LET GO of it. He MUST keep on
arguing and arguing and arguing and arguing it over and over and
over and over again...perhaps hoping that I will "give in" or
acknowledge his Lordship's Superior Intellect or whatever. :-)


I'm just opposed to a minimum age requirement for an amateur radio
license.

Good for you. Len is in favor of an age requirement.

What I "favor" is NOT allowed in here according to James P.
Miccolis, renowned amateur historian and mighty macho motivated
morseman extra. :-)


and Len supports the notion at this point

Why?

Why not? The books are full of minimum age requirements for various
things.

...not to mention the Constitution of the United States. :-)

Note that the Miccolis Misdirection ploy is almost complete.
Once again, Miccolis Misdirection has caused a thread shift
to an oft-repeated "argument" (originally started by Hans
Brakob in here) over a Reply to Comments on the (now dead)
WT Docket 98-143 of 1998-1999.

Instead of the usual condemnation (of anyone not thinking as
wonderfully as Jimmie) on the "docket score card" (05-235 tally),
we have done the Time Warp back to 1999 and are re-arguing
the "up-coming" Reconstruction R&O. :-) FCC 99-412 of late
December 1999 decided "Reconstruction."

The FCC did NOT order any age requirements in R&O 99-412. There
is NO age requirement statement of any kind in NPRM 05-143.
Jimmie thinks this is ALL about "age requirements."



I neither support nor oppose such a notion,

Why don't you oppose it? It's a completely unnecessary
requirement for a license. No evidence has been presented
to support it.

Morse Code in sheep's clothing? Hi!

More like "Morse sheep in wolf's costume." :-)

Halloween without the Trick or Treat...

Just what we need is another unnecessary, arbitrary license requirement!

Just what we DON'T need is Jimmie hosing everyone with an old,
Old, OLD arguments over "age requirements" which were NOT on the
"reconstruction" NPRM nor in NPRM 05-143. :-)

Now, if Jimmie wants to fire up his "state of the art" 1990s
vacuum tube Southgate Type 7 and beep to young boys with CW, let
him. It keeps him "happy" when he doesn't have to reveal a
thing about his REAL identity...on-off keying morse code cannot
reveal a single clue to gender, age, emotion, or anything else
while voice can tell much. Jimmie can, effectively, HIDE behind
his on-off key. Jimmie can be the "X-man superhero," a "masked
avenger" (like Captain Code) who keeps alive the old, Old, OLD
modes forever and ever. [long live 1844! :-) ]