Anderson proposes new licensing restrictions
K0...@arrl.org
rambling comments to the FCC on January 13th, has proposed a new restriction
on entrance to amateur radio. He proposes that license applications from
otherwise qualified persons should not be accepted if the applicant has not
attained their 14th birthday.
This arbitrary restriction, in a service which has historically gained most
new members from youth, seems calculated to choke off new entrants and
ultimately reduce the number of licensees below the 'critical mass' needed to
justify our frequency allocations. He would deprive young people such as
Scouts and school-based radio clubs of this educational resource, and
accelerate the "technical dumbing down" of America.
Since this new initiative to cripple our efforts to recruit youth to the
Amateur Radio service was improperly couched in the context of "reply
comments", all concerned persons should feel free to express their
disagreement to the FCC, even though the period for reply comments has ended.
73, de Hans, K0HB
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
brian...@my-dejanews.com
K0...@arrl.org wrote:
> Leonard H. Anderson (presumed to be r.r.a.p.'s beloved "NoCWTest"), in
> rambling comments to the FCC on January 13th, has proposed a new restriction
> on entrance to amateur radio. He proposes that license applications from
> otherwise qualified persons should not be accepted if the applicant has not
> attained their 14th birthday.
>
> This arbitrary restriction, in a service which has historically gained most
> new members from youth, seems calculated to choke off new entrants and
> ultimately reduce the number of licensees below the 'critical mass' needed to
> justify our frequency allocations. He would deprive young people such as
> Scouts and school-based radio clubs of this educational resource, and
> accelerate the "technical dumbing down" of America.
>
> Since this new initiative to cripple our efforts to recruit youth to the
> Amateur Radio service was improperly couched in the context of "reply
> comments", all concerned persons should feel free to express their
> disagreement to the FCC, even though the period for reply comments has ended.
>
> 73, de Hans, K0HB
Geez Hans, I take it that you don't care for -arbitrary- licensing
requirements.
This is really very funny. Maybe I'll dream up something completely
arbitrary and ship it off to the FCC. Maybe I'll do something with even more
incentives. Heck, why not? Sounds like a lot of fun.
73,
Brian/N0iMD
K0...@arrl.org
> Maybe I'll dream up something completely arbitrary and ship it off
> to the FCC.
That would certainly be in keeping with your rank of LAjg (Len Anderson junior
grade).
73, de Hans, K0HB
Dave Heil
>
> Leonard H. Anderson (presumed to be r.r.a.p.'s beloved "NoCWTest"), in
> rambling comments to the FCC on January 13th, has proposed a new restriction
> on entrance to amateur radio. He proposes that license applications from
> otherwise qualified persons should not be accepted if the applicant has not
> attained their 14th birthday.
>
> This arbitrary restriction, in a service which has historically gained most
> new members from youth, seems calculated to choke off new entrants and
> ultimately reduce the number of licensees below the 'critical mass' needed to
> justify our frequency allocations. He would deprive young people such as
> Scouts and school-based radio clubs of this educational resource, and
> accelerate the "technical dumbing down" of America.
>
> Since this new initiative to cripple our efforts to recruit youth to the
> Amateur Radio service was improperly couched in the context of "reply
> comments", all concerned persons should feel free to express their
> disagreement to the FCC, even though the period for reply comments has ended.
All this time the sap has been crying about morse testing choking off
the flow of new blood into amateur radio. Now he has decided that if
one is under fourteen, one cannot possibly comprehend the electron or
understand a regulation. Guess he wants that lodge hall door locked a
while longer so the kids won't see him taking a pull from that HF jug.
Dave 5H3US, K8MN
--
For 5H3US photos, go to
http://jjr.ne.mediaone.net/5H3US/
Carl R. Stevenson
Hash: SHA1
K0...@arrl.org wrote in message <7a9dn2$j54$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>Leonard H. Anderson (presumed to be r.r.a.p.'s beloved "NoCWTest"), in
>rambling comments to the FCC on January 13th, has proposed a new restriction
>on entrance to amateur radio. He proposes that license applications from
>otherwise qualified persons should not be accepted if the applicant has not
>attained their 14th birthday.
>
>This arbitrary restriction, in a service which has historically gained most
>new members from youth,
That's a real ROTFLMAO, Hans ... the statistics don't support your
assertion ... kids are staying away in droves ... the median age of
hams is getting older and older and most new hams are adults,
NOT kids.
However, even you took pause at the thought of a 5 or 6 year old
tech being able to legally construct, operate, and service a 1500W
VHF/UHF station ... I'm sure it's in DejaNews, so I won't bother
dredging it out.
[yada, yada, yada ... Han's additional rants deleted in the interest of honesty]
- --
Carl - wa6vse
wa6...@fast.net
http://www.users.fast.net/~wa6vse
NCI #1052
Join No Code International!
Hams for the 21st century.
Support the modernization of ham radio and help
to assure its survival into the 21st century!
http://www.nocode.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.5.3
iQA/AwUBNsjGApe+N6+q84HiEQIFNACgtaec+SFGUEudX3CRrlcV/JZaST8An32j
HomJt54g6/9iP9Gn/v7Tb8lT
=QbTT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Dan Finn
All that time, Lenny was anti-amateur radio, as he obviously is today.
Methinks the FCC will consider the source of that proposal and
appropriately
consign it to the circular file.
Todd Little was always crital of posts in rrap which tried to get to the
author's
motives; 'just the facts, please'. The facts about Lenny is best
reflected in his
proposal, and his motive is to haem the Service.
73
KR4AJ (Dan)
K0...@arrl.org wrote:
>
> Leonard H. Anderson (presumed to be r.r.a.p.'s beloved "NoCWTest"), in
> rambling comments to the FCC on January 13th, has proposed a new restriction
> on entrance to amateur radio. He proposes that license applications from
> otherwise qualified persons should not be accepted if the applicant has not
> attained their 14th birthday.
>
> This arbitrary restriction, in a service which has historically gained most
> new members from youth, seems calculated to choke off new entrants and
> ultimately reduce the number of licensees below the 'critical mass' needed to
> justify our frequency allocations. He would deprive young people such as
> Scouts and school-based radio clubs of this educational resource, and
> accelerate the "technical dumbing down" of America.
>
> Since this new initiative to cripple our efforts to recruit youth to the
> Amateur Radio service was improperly couched in the context of "reply
> comments", all concerned persons should feel free to express their
> disagreement to the FCC, even though the period for reply comments has ended.
>
brian...@my-dejanews.com
K0...@arrl.org wrote:
> brian...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> > Maybe I'll dream up something completely arbitrary and ship it off
> > to the FCC.
>
> That would certainly be in keeping with your rank of LAjg (Len Anderson junior
> grade).
>
> 73, de Hans, K0HB
Again; your underwear got all bunched up when you thought something was
completely arbitrary. I guess you just didn't like it. Gosh, its unfair, its
discriminitory, its arbitrary, its.. its a hazing ritual.
Brian/N0iMD
N2EY
In article <7a9dn2$j54$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, K0...@arrl.org writes:
>Subject: Anderson proposes new licensing restrictions
>From: K0...@arrl.org
>Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 15:15:53 GMT
>
>Leonard H. Anderson (presumed to be r.r.a.p.'s beloved "NoCWTest"), in
>rambling comments to the FCC on January 13th, has proposed a new restriction
>on entrance to amateur radio. He proposes that license applications from
>otherwise qualified persons should not be accepted if the applicant has not
>attained their 14th birthday.
Hello Hans,
In a word: WHY?
There has NEVER been any age restriction on US amateur radio licenses. There
has NEVER, to my knowledge, been ANY problem in the amateur radio service
caused by hams under the age of 14 that was age-related.
What possible reason is there for an age limitation? What problem is there that
needs to be solved?
>This arbitrary restriction, in a service which has historically gained most
>new members from youth, seems calculated to choke off new entrants and
>ultimately reduce the number of licensees below the 'critical mass' needed to
>justify our frequency allocations.
I am convinced that the vast majority of posters to this newsgroup, and the
vast majority of commenters to the NPRM, are concerned about doing the best
thing for the future of the amateur radio service. Practically all of the
nocodetest people, I think, really believe that eliminating code testing is in
the best interests of amateur radio. I don't agree with them, for reasons that
have been stated elsewhere, but I think they are sincere. And mistaken.
Similarly, I think practically all of the procodetest people really believe
that keeping code testing is in the best interests of amateur radio. The
disagreements are all really about opinions and methods.
But Anderson is not interested in what is best for the future of the ARS. He
does not want an amateur license of any kind, with or without code test. Read
enough of his posts, as I have, and you will see that he holds the ARS, and
radio amateurs in general, in contempt. He wants the ARS to either disappear,
or be changed into something none of us would recognize - or want.
One has to wonder what his interest in the amateur radio service really is. I
don't really know. He attributes all kinds of motives to others - but never
explains his own.
> He would deprive young people such as
>Scouts and school-based radio clubs of this educational resource, and
>accelerate the "technical dumbing down" of America.
And accelerate negative growth in the ARS.
>
>Since this new initiative to cripple our efforts to recruit youth to the
>Amateur Radio service was improperly couched in the context of "reply
>comments", all concerned persons should feel free to express their
>disagreement to the FCC, even though the period for reply comments has ended.
Good idea - maybe. Calling attention to this may not help anything. The FCC did
NOT ask for comment in this area. I doubt any of the other 2000+ commenters
mentioned anything of this sort.
Thanks for pointing this out, Hans.
73 de Jim, N2EY
Kinkster
Isn't that Len (No CW Testicles) Anderson ??
On Mon, 15 Feb 1999 21:08:25 -0500, Dan Finn <djf...@ibm.net> wrote:
>I was certain that one day this Len's true colors would show.
>All that time, Lenny was anti-amateur radio, as he obviously is today.
>Methinks the FCC will consider the source of that proposal and
>appropriately
>consign it to the circular file.
>
>Todd Little was always crital of posts in rrap which tried to get to the
>author's
>motives; 'just the facts, please'. The facts about Lenny is best
>reflected in his
>proposal, and his motive is to haem the Service.
>
>73
>
>KR4AJ (Dan)
>
>
>K0...@arrl.org wrote:
>>
>> Leonard H. Anderson (presumed to be r.r.a.p.'s beloved "NoCWTest"), in
>> rambling comments to the FCC on January 13th, has proposed a new restriction
>> on entrance to amateur radio. He proposes that license applications from
>> otherwise qualified persons should not be accepted if the applicant has not
>> attained their 14th birthday.
>>
>> This arbitrary restriction, in a service which has historically gained most
>> new members from youth, seems calculated to choke off new entrants and
>> ultimately reduce the number of licensees below the 'critical mass' needed to
>> justify our frequency allocations. He would deprive young people such as
>> Scouts and school-based radio clubs of this educational resource, and
>> accelerate the "technical dumbing down" of America.
>>
>> Since this new initiative to cripple our efforts to recruit youth to the
>> Amateur Radio service was improperly couched in the context of "reply
>> comments", all concerned persons should feel free to express their
>> disagreement to the FCC, even though the period for reply comments has ended.
>>
>> 73, de Hans, K0HB
brian...@my-dejanews.com
Dave Heil <K8...@cats-net.com> wrote:
> K0...@arrl.org wrote:
> >
> > Leonard H. Anderson (presumed to be r.r.a.p.'s beloved "NoCWTest"), in
> > rambling comments to the FCC on January 13th, has proposed a new restriction
> > on entrance to amateur radio. He proposes that license applications from
> > otherwise qualified persons should not be accepted if the applicant has not
> > attained their 14th birthday.
> >
> > This arbitrary restriction, in a service which has historically gained most
> > new members from youth, seems calculated to choke off new entrants and
> > ultimately reduce the number of licensees below the 'critical mass' needed
to
> > justify our frequency allocations. He would deprive young people such as
> > Scouts and school-based radio clubs of this educational resource, and
> > accelerate the "technical dumbing down" of America.
> >
> > Since this new initiative to cripple our efforts to recruit youth to the
> > Amateur Radio service was improperly couched in the context of "reply
> > comments", all concerned persons should feel free to express their
> > disagreement to the FCC, even though the period for reply comments has
ended.
>
> the flow of new blood into amateur radio. Now he has decided that if
> one is under fourteen, one cannot possibly comprehend the electron or
> understand a regulation. Guess he wants that lodge hall door locked a
> while longer so the kids won't see him taking a pull from that HF jug.
>
> Dave 5H3US, K8MN
Dave, its intoxicating, isn't it?
No CW Test
>K0...@arrl.org wrote:
>>
>> Leonard H. Anderson (presumed to be r.r.a.p.'s beloved "NoCWTest"), in
>> rambling comments to the FCC on January 13th, has proposed a new
>restriction
>> on entrance to amateur radio. He proposes that license applications from
>> otherwise qualified persons should not be accepted if the applicant has not
>> attained their 14th birthday.
Absolutely! The arbitrary age of 14 (approximate Grade 8 in USA) is
considered to allow reasonable reading comprehension of the English
language for the purposes of READING the written test elements.
This would be much more honest than expecting anyone to believe that
FOUR YEAR OLDS have reading comprehension. [see referenced ARRL
Letter with photo]
There is NO AGE LIMIT now.
>> This arbitrary restriction, in a service which has historically gained most
>> new members from youth, seems calculated to choke off new entrants and
>> ultimately reduce the number of licensees below the 'critical mass' needed
to
>> justify our frequency allocations. He would deprive young people such as
>> Scouts and school-based radio clubs of this educational resource, and
>> accelerate the "technical dumbing down" of America.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!
My goodness..."choke off new entrants!" Herr Breakup wants to have an
amateur radio community of the future to be prepubescent children?!?!?
Let's hear it for the four year old Novices who have READ and UNDERSTOOD
the written test elements and realize their responsibility in having a
license!!!
Let's hear it for the VEs who have PASSED those CHILDREN for the FCC!!!
"...ultimately reduce the number of licensees below the 'critical mass'"!!!!!
What, pray tell, does Herr Breakup think of the 170K+ Technician class
licensees added in nine years? Are they "real hams" or is Breakup being
a stuffed turkey about that class? Technician class licensees are the only,
repeat ONLY, class that shows any new blood in USA amateur radio.
>> Since this new initiative to cripple our efforts to recruit youth to the
>> Amateur Radio service was improperly couched in the context of "reply
>> comments", all concerned persons should feel free to express their
>> disagreement to the FCC, even though the period for reply comments has
>> ended.
Herr Breakup ought to get federal courts to absolutely FORBID anyone from
commenting about radio regulations unless they are properly licensed in that
radio service! Yes, he should. Herr Breakup seems to need his Jugend to
satisfy His concept of keeping the traditions, legends, and myth of amateur
radio forever.
>All this time the sap has been crying about morse testing choking off
>the flow of new blood into amateur radio. Now he has decided that if
>one is under fourteen, one cannot possibly comprehend the electron or
>understand a regulation. Guess he wants that lodge hall door locked a
>while longer so the kids won't see him taking a pull from that HF jug.
Ah yes, the warm-hearted convivial stormtrooper from central africa MUST
make his SUPERIORITY known! Four year olds who can beep (along with
parents who have conned the VEs into passing them) are considered
"superior" to those who are not licensed in the amateur radio service.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!
>Dave 5H3US, K8MN
>--
>For 5H3US photos, go to
>http://jjr.ne.mediaone.net/5H3US/
[...Dave...LOSE SOME WEIGHT! You are getting downright pudgy and
scowling too much. I'll bet those jackboots and arm band are really tight?]
No CW Test
In article <19990216013605...@ngol06.aol.com>, n2...@aol.com (N2EY)
writes:
>In article <7a9dn2$j54$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, K0...@arrl.org writes:
>
>>Subject: Anderson proposes new licensing restrictions
>>From: K0...@arrl.org
>>Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 15:15:53 GMT
>>
>>Leonard H. Anderson (presumed to be r.r.a.p.'s beloved "NoCWTest"), in
>>rambling comments to the FCC on January 13th, has proposed a new restriction
>>on entrance to amateur radio. He proposes that license applications from
>>otherwise qualified persons should not be accepted if the applicant has not
>>attained their 14th birthday.
>
>Hello Hans,
>
>In a word: WHY?
>
>There has NEVER been any age restriction on US amateur radio licenses. There
>has NEVER, to my knowledge, been ANY problem in the amateur radio service
>caused by hams under the age of 14 that was age-related.
>
>What possible reason is there for an age limitation? What problem is there
>that needs to be solved?
OK, you want four year olds to be licensed as Techs and Novices? Fine.
Now explain to me how a FOUR YEAR OLD CHILD can be a responsible
licensee. (this ought to be interesting...)
<snip>
>But Anderson is not interested in what is best for the future of the ARS. He
>does not want an amateur license of any kind, with or without code test.
How do you KNOW that? Is it in the following?
>Read enough of his posts, as I have, and you will see that he holds the ARS,
and
>radio amateurs in general, in contempt.
Only SOME INDIVIDUAL radio amateurs in contempt. Most definitely.
The amateur radio service held in contempt? No. Absolutely not.
Jim, you have to realize that INDIVIDUALS are NOT "THE amateur radio
service," only singular licensees within that radio service.
> He wants the ARS to either disappear,
>or be changed into something none of us would recognize - or want.
Ooops, there you go, identifying YOURSELF as "US (hams)." Tsk, tsk.
>One has to wonder what his interest in the amateur radio service really is. I
>don't really know. He attributes all kinds of motives to others - but never
>explains his own.
Obviously some who write verbosely cannot read. Earth to Jim, earth to Jim,
hello? All I've said is that the morse code test is NO LONGER RELEVANT
to amateur radio LICENSING and should be removed. I've given reasons for
that opinion. Certain pro-coders have entertained me with some very graphic
and explicit personal reasons on my alleged "motives"...seemingly because
such a no-code-TEST opinion is against Their Belief System about amateur
radio. The only logical reason they have given is that "international law
[sic]
requires a morse code test for HF privileges." [it's a treaty, not a law, an
agreement that is honored]
What is interesting is that I HAVE given my motives early on...which were
then immediately attacked on my person. The MOTIVES "behind" any
opinion should not be questionable...but it would seem that Belief Systems
NEED their middle-ages witch hunts (burn the heretics at the stake!).
>> He would deprive young people such as
>>Scouts and school-based radio clubs of this educational resource, and
>>accelerate the "technical dumbing down" of America.
>
>And accelerate negative growth in the ARS.
Ah! Admission of negative growth...for the code-tested license classes!
Good on you. The license class that is almost keeping the amateur radio
numbers stable is the NO-CODE Technician class! ("dumbing down!
dumbing down!") Good grief.
Is the opposite side of the coin having the federal government support
scouting by providing merit badges and status and rank in amateur radio?
Seems to me that such has been operational for 29 years.
Herr Breakup must not like heretics. Nor you.
>>Since this new initiative to cripple our efforts to recruit youth to the
>>Amateur Radio service was improperly couched in the context of "reply
>>comments", all concerned persons should feel free to express their
>>disagreement to the FCC, even though the period for reply comments has
>ended.
>
>Good idea - maybe. Calling attention to this may not help anything. The FCC
did
>NOT ask for comment in this area. I doubt any of the other 2000+ commenters
>mentioned anything of this sort.
2250 documents in the ECFS. All are on public view. Go read them. As a sum
total, they DO contain comments of MANY KINDS NOT "asked for!"
>Thanks for pointing this out, Hans.
Witch-hunters have to stick together. Glad he got company. :-)
Dave Heil
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> K0...@arrl.org wrote in message <7a9dn2$j54$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> >rambling comments to the FCC on January 13th, has proposed a new restriction
> >on entrance to amateur radio. He proposes that license applications from
> >otherwise qualified persons should not be accepted if the applicant has not
> >attained their 14th birthday.
> >
> >new members from youth,
>
> assertion ... kids are staying away in droves ... the median age of
> hams is getting older and older and most new hams are adults,
> NOT kids.
>
> However, even you took pause at the thought of a 5 or 6 year old
> tech being able to legally construct, operate, and service a 1500W
> VHF/UHF station ... I'm sure it's in DejaNews, so I won't bother
> dredging it out.
>
> [yada, yada, yada ... Han's additional rants deleted in the interest of honesty]
In the interest of "honesty", you don't believe that a 13-year-old kid
can open the box containing a new Alinco transceiver, take the radio
out, connect the mike and antenna and talk on it? Can a seven-year-old
do it?
It must gall you that some young kids can pass the same exam you've
taken, nail a thirteen wpm code test and end up with more HF access than
you have. If it bothers you, it must eat Len Anderson alive.
Dave Heil
>
> In article <36C8C3...@cats-net.com>, Dave Heil <K8...@cats-net.com> writes:
>
> >K0...@arrl.org wrote:
> >>
> >> rambling comments to the FCC on January 13th, has proposed a new
> >restriction
> >> on entrance to amateur radio. He proposes that license applications from
> >> otherwise qualified persons should not be accepted if the applicant has not
> >> attained their 14th birthday.
>
> considered to allow reasonable reading comprehension of the English
> language for the purposes of READING the written test elements.
>
> This would be much more honest than expecting anyone to believe that
> FOUR YEAR OLDS have reading comprehension. [see referenced ARRL
> Letter with photo]
>
> There is NO AGE LIMIT now.
That's funny. Finland used to have an age restriction. In an
enlightened move, the authorities there did away with it and brought
Finland in line with many other countries with no age restriction.
> >> This arbitrary restriction, in a service which has historically gained most
> >> new members from youth, seems calculated to choke off new entrants and
> >> ultimately reduce the number of licensees below the 'critical mass' needed
> to
> >> justify our frequency allocations. He would deprive young people such as
> >> Scouts and school-based radio clubs of this educational resource, and
> >> accelerate the "technical dumbing down" of America.
>
> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!
>
> My goodness..."choke off new entrants!" Herr Breakup wants to have an
> amateur radio community of the future to be prepubescent children?!?!?
Anderson forgot an important biological fact. Prepubescent children do
not remain in that state. They age. They grow up. I got my Novice
license at fourteen and would have had it earlier had I known any hams
where I lived at the time.
> Let's hear it for the four year old Novices who have READ and UNDERSTOOD
> the written test elements and realize their responsibility in having a
> license!!!
> Let's hear it for the VEs who have PASSED those CHILDREN for the FCC!!!
>
> "...ultimately reduce the number of licensees below the 'critical mass'"!!!!!
> What, pray tell, does Herr Breakup think of the 170K+ Technician class
> licensees added in nine years? Are they "real hams" or is Breakup being
> a stuffed turkey about that class? Technician class licensees are the only,
> repeat ONLY, class that shows any new blood in USA amateur radio.
>
> >> Since this new initiative to cripple our efforts to recruit youth to the
> >> Amateur Radio service was improperly couched in the context of "reply
> >> comments", all concerned persons should feel free to express their
> >> disagreement to the FCC, even though the period for reply comments has
> >> ended.
>
> Herr Breakup ought to get federal courts to absolutely FORBID anyone from
> commenting about radio regulations unless they are properly licensed in that
> radio service! Yes, he should. Herr Breakup seems to need his Jugend to
> satisfy His concept of keeping the traditions, legends, and myth of amateur
> radio forever.
All this "Herr Breakup" routine and the use of "jugend" isn't by chance
one of the ad hominem attacks you frequently refer to is it? You said
your piece here and to the FCC, Lennie even without a license. I feel
it is only fair for others who don't agree with your silly age
restriction to be able to utter formal or informal disagreement with
you.
> >All this time the sap has been crying about morse testing choking off
> >the flow of new blood into amateur radio. Now he has decided that if
> >one is under fourteen, one cannot possibly comprehend the electron or
> >understand a regulation. Guess he wants that lodge hall door locked a
> >while longer so the kids won't see him taking a pull from that HF jug.
>
> Ah yes, the warm-hearted convivial stormtrooper from central africa MUST
> make his SUPERIORITY known! Four year olds who can beep (along with
> parents who have conned the VEs into passing them) are considered
> "superior" to those who are not licensed in the amateur radio service.
>
> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!
Len, I'd be superior to you even without a license but I don't mind
pointing out to you that I've held one for 35 years and you have yet to
obtain one. Yep, 35 years of enjoyment from amateur radio while you sit
on the sidelines bitching that the rules of the game are unfair and 35
years in this pleasant and cozy lodege hall while you're been out on the
steps railing against being kept out while having never once tried to
open the door. I'm DOING and you are simply TALKING. I'll also point
out, so you can pass your geography exam, that Tanzania (there is a road
past the Dar es Salaam airport where there is a pastel blue house which
is known for what colorful bit of local colonial period history?) is in
EAST Africa, not central Africa.
> [...Dave...LOSE SOME WEIGHT! You are getting downright pudgy and
> scowling too much. I'll bet those jackboots and arm band are really tight?]
Let's see "storm trooper", "armbands", "jackboots"...could I consider
those an ad hominem attack from one who wishes to stifle ridicule of his
absurd age restriction for amateur radio licensing? As to the weight
(an ad hominem attack?), maybe I'll adopt the Len Anderson bran/prune
diet. It seems to adjusted the throughput level for you.
How's that code practice working out?
Dave Heil
> > K0...@arrl.org wrote:
> > >
> > > Leonard H. Anderson (presumed to be r.r.a.p.'s beloved "NoCWTest"), in
> > > rambling comments to the FCC on January 13th, has proposed a new restriction
> > > on entrance to amateur radio. He proposes that license applications from
> > > otherwise qualified persons should not be accepted if the applicant has not
> > > attained their 14th birthday.
> > >
> > > new members from youth, seems calculated to choke off new entrants and
> > > ultimately reduce the number of licensees below the 'critical mass' needed
> to
> > > justify our frequency allocations. He would deprive young people such as
> > > Scouts and school-based radio clubs of this educational resource, and
> > > accelerate the "technical dumbing down" of America.
> > >
> > > Amateur Radio service was improperly couched in the context of "reply
> > > comments", all concerned persons should feel free to express their
> > > disagreement to the FCC, even though the period for reply comments has
> ended.
> >
> > the flow of new blood into amateur radio. Now he has decided that if
> > one is under fourteen, one cannot possibly comprehend the electron or
> > understand a regulation. Guess he wants that lodge hall door locked a
> > while longer so the kids won't see him taking a pull from that HF jug.
> >
>
> Dave, its intoxicating, isn't it?
Almost as intoxicating as the fact that I've gotten paid all of these
years to travel and live in exotic lands. The pay isn't as good but
amateur radio is what drove me to the job. It's funny too that I spend
the bottom of the solar cycle in a fun place like Helsinki, a town which
offers all sorts of diversions and when Old Sol starts to get freckles,
I move to a place with an exotic prefix. Too bad I waste about half of
my on-air time using CW. On 160 and 80, it gets through when......SSB
won't.
K0...@arrl.org
> However, even you took pause at the thought of a 5 or 6 year old
> tech being able to legally construct, operate, and service a 1500W
> VHF/UHF station ...
My concerns center on proper qualification, not on age. The ITU regulations
provide an excellent set of guidelines:
S25.6 Administrations shall take such measures as they judge necessary
to verify the operational and technical qualifications of any
person wishing to operate the apparatus of an amateur station.
S25.7 The maximum power of amateur stations shall be fixed by the
administrations concerned, having regard to the technical
qualifications of the operators and to the conditions under
which these stations are to operate.
My recommendation to FCC in response to Docket 98-143 would place a 50W power
limit on entry-class licensees (regardless of age).
Rather than address technical qualifications, Andersons proposal would
regulate input to our service based on age, and attach repulsive ethnic
characterizations to those who disagree with him.
73, de Hans, K0HB
ERLPN K4YZ
>>>Let's see "storm trooper", "armbands", "jackboots"...could I consider
those an ad hominem attack from one who wishes to stifle ridicule of his absurd
age restriction for amateur radio licensing? As to the weight (an ad hominem
attack?), maybe I'll adopt the Len Anderson bran/prune diet. It seems to
adjusted the throughput level for you.<<<
I caught Anderson online under his other "nomme de guerre" of
Len...@aol.com. I tried to IM him with very civil "hellos" and "aren't you
going to at least say hello". True to form, he didn't. Saving up, I am sure
for some venomous retort to be poured out onto RRAP.
The "jackboot" ad nauseum references are easy for a man who can't see past
the hate and loathing of his own soul. From a Nursing perspective, even
without having met him in person, it is easy to see how he uses Amateur Radio
for "displaced anxiety". Something in his life is incomplete and missing, and
he lashes out. Unfortunately WE happen to be the victims of his rath.
Read back through RRAP in DejaNews and notice that 97% of his most
venomous espousings have been against anyone with a 1 by 2 or 2 by 1 call. He
targets Extras for this anger since we are the ultimate accomplishment of the
licensing process.
Notice a couple days ago he started some guff about me and my "failed"
Marine Corps career, despite nothing of the like being true? This is all
symptomatic of his frustrations and anxiety, and an attempt to "displace" them
to someone or something else. Something in his life is missing, and only he
can find that link and deal with it.
We need to realize that Anderson has a problem that, until HE seeks help
for it, will be vented upon us, regardless of the truth or validity of the
arguments. This will include frequent inferences of association with such
hated and loathed entities such as the Nazis. It helps him to further
"rationalize" his own attacks and his venting of frustration upon us to liken
us to them.
I used to think it was just NG bantering, but I now realize that he really
is ill, and as such needs compassion and understanding. This is not an easy
thing to do, considering the frequency and anger of his attacks.
The best thing to do is simply not respond to any more of his posts and
ignore anything he does post. When he stops getting the attention that his
disorder demands, he'll move on.
73
Steve, K4YZ
Jones
>can open the box containing a new Alinco transceiver, take the radio
>out, connect the mike and antenna and talk on it? Can a seven-year-old
>do it?
But is it safe? Shouldn't they be protected from the x-rated content their
going to hear...
n2...@aol.com
nocw...@aol.com (No CW Test) wrote:
>
> In article <19990216013605...@ngol06.aol.com>, n2...@aol.com (N2EY)
> writes:
>
> >In article <7a9dn2$j54$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, K0...@arrl.org writes:
> >
> >>Subject: Anderson proposes new licensing restrictions
> >>From: K0...@arrl.org
> >>Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 15:15:53 GMT
> >>
> >>rambling comments to the FCC on January 13th, has proposed a new restriction
> >>on entrance to amateur radio. He proposes that license applications from
> >>otherwise qualified persons should not be accepted if the applicant has not
> >>attained their 14th birthday.
> >
> >
> >In a word: WHY?
> >
> >There has NEVER been any age restriction on US amateur radio licenses. There
> >has NEVER, to my knowledge, been ANY problem in the amateur radio service
> >caused by hams under the age of 14 that was age-related.
> >
> >What possible reason is there for an age limitation? What problem is there
> >that needs to be solved?
>
> OK, you want four year olds to be licensed as Techs and Novices?
If a four year old can pass the license test for ANY class of amateur radio
license unaided, I see no reason that a license should be denied. There are
not many four year olds that can read and write at the level necessary to
pass the exams.
> Fine.
> Now explain to me how a FOUR YEAR OLD CHILD can be a responsible
> licensee. (this ought to be interesting...)
If a four year old can pass the license test for ANY class of amateur radio
license unaided, I see no reason that a license should be denied based solely
on age.
Anderson is challenged to demonstrate that a four year old child that can pass
the exams unaided cannot be a responsible amateur radio operator.
If the tests are inadequate, they should be revised. The fact that there may
exist bright four year olds that can pass the Technician test says there may
be a need for a revision of the test, not an age limit.
It should be noted that Anderson's comment was to set an age limit at
FOURTEEN, not FOUR years of age. The reason for an age limit of 14 is not
explained by Anderson.
The question remains: What problem(s) is/are caused by the licensing of
individuals under the age of 14? I know of absolutely none that are age-
related. This question has not been answered by Anderson.
>
> <snip>
>
> >But Anderson is not interested in what is best for the future of the ARS. He
> >does not want an amateur license of any kind, with or without code test.
>
> How do you KNOW that?
1) Anderson does not currently hold, nor has he ever held, an amateur license
of any class. He has never posted any intent or desire to be licensed.
2) Anderson's posts are uniformly derogatory of the amateur radio service as
well as individual amateurs.
> Is it in the following?
It is in the dejanews archives. Thousands of posts to a single newsgroup,
focused on a single issue.
>
> >Read enough of his posts, as I have, and you will see that he holds the ARS,
> and
> >radio amateurs in general, in contempt.
>
> Only SOME INDIVIDUAL radio amateurs in contempt. Most definitely.
Those held in esteem are apparently an extremely rare species.
> The amateur radio service held in contempt? No. Absolutely not.
The impression given by reading Anderson's posts is exactly the opposite.
>
> Jim, you have to realize that INDIVIDUALS are NOT "THE amateur radio
> service," only singular licensees within that radio service.
The service is the sum total of the licensees and their activities. No
licensees, and the service ceases to exist in any meaningful form. Reducing
the number of newcomers by means of an age limit when there is no evidence of
an age related problem can only harm the ARS.
>
> > He wants the ARS to either disappear,
> >or be changed into something none of us would recognize - or want.
>
> Ooops, there you go, identifying YOURSELF as "US (hams)." Tsk, tsk.
"Us" in the sentence above, does not mean nor imply only licensed radio
amateurs. It includes all who are interested in the service.
>
> >One has to wonder what his interest in the amateur radio service really is. I
> >don't really know. He attributes all kinds of motives to others - but never
> >explains his own.
>
> Obviously some who write verbosely cannot read. Earth to Jim, earth to Jim,
> hello? All I've said is that the morse code test is NO LONGER RELEVANT
> to amateur radio LICENSING and should be removed. I've given reasons for
> that opinion.
Reasons that are not accepted by others.
> Certain pro-coders have entertained me with some very graphic
> and explicit personal reasons on my alleged "motives"...seemingly because
> such a no-code-TEST opinion is against Their Belief System about amateur
> radio. The only logical reason they have given is that "international law
> [sic]
> requires a morse code test for HF privileges." [it's a treaty, not a law, an
> agreement that is honored]
Anderson has repeatedly given others' motives, but not his own.
>
> What is interesting is that I HAVE given my motives early on...
And never repeated. A pointer to those motives would be appreciated. I have
been a regular reader of this and other newsgroups for the past 18 months and
have never read any motive for his interest in a service he does not
participate in posted by Anderson.
> which were
> then immediately attacked on my person.
I do not understand the meaning of the phrase "attacked on my person".
Clarification is requested. Was Anderson the victim of a physical assault as
the result of a newsgroup post?
> The MOTIVES "behind" any
> opinion should not be questionable...
The motives behind any opinion are of great importance. If the motive behind
an opinion are not questionable, why does Anderson so often attack the
motives of those who favor code testing?
> but it would seem that Belief Systems
> NEED their middle-ages witch hunts (burn the heretics at the stake!).
Anderson is invited to quote any post in which I have advocated that anyone
should be "burned at the stake" or that holders of any opinion on the code
issue are "lazy", "whining", or "not real hams".
>
> >> He would deprive young people such as
> >>Scouts and school-based radio clubs of this educational resource, and
> >>accelerate the "technical dumbing down" of America.
> >
> >And accelerate negative growth in the ARS.
>
> Ah! Admission of negative growth...for the code-tested license classes!
> Good on you. The license class that is almost keeping the amateur radio
> numbers stable is the NO-CODE Technician class! ("dumbing down!
> dumbing down!") Good grief.
The above is a spin doctoring of several facts.
Two classes of amateur radio license are growing - the Extra class, which has
the highest level of code and written testing, and the Technician class, which
has no code test. But that is not the whole story. Anderson does not mention
important facts.
There are two ways that a license class loses members - expiration at the end
of the license term, and upgrading to a higher level license. But the
Technician class of license can only lose members by expiration, because the
class is too new for any of the licenses to have expired. All other classes
are of long standing, and lose considerable numbers of members to expiration
every year.
It should be noted that in the 1980s, the decade preceding any nocode US
amateur radio license, the ARS grew from approximately 350,000 to 550,000
licensees.
>
> Is the opposite side of the coin having the federal government support
> scouting by providing merit badges and status and rank in amateur radio?
The question under discussion is the need for an age limit on licenses, and
Anderson's motives for commenting on the amateur radio service.
> Seems to me that such has been operational for 29 years.
Incentive licensing was reintroduced to amateur radio on November 22, 1968 -
30 years and 2-1/2 months ago. Previous to 1953, it was in place in a
different form.
"Status" and "rank" seem to serve most areas of human endeavor quite well. I
see no problem in there being more than one class of license.
>
> Herr Breakup must not like heretics. Nor you.
I don't know if Hans likes me or not. He seems to be an intelligent chap. We
agree on some things and disagree on others.
>
> >>Since this new initiative to cripple our efforts to recruit youth to the
> >>Amateur Radio service was improperly couched in the context of "reply
> >>comments", all concerned persons should feel free to express their
> >>disagreement to the FCC, even though the period for reply comments has
> >ended.
> >
> >Good idea - maybe. Calling attention to this may not help anything. The FCC
> did
> >NOT ask for comment in this area. I doubt any of the other 2000+ commenters
> >mentioned anything of this sort.
>
> 2250 documents in the ECFS. All are on public view. Go read them.
> As a sum
> total, they DO contain comments of MANY KINDS NOT "asked for!"
Did any of them mention age limits for licenses?
>
> >Thanks for pointing this out, Hans.
>
> Witch-hunters have to stick together. Glad he got company. :-)
It is not a "witch hunt". Nowhere have I stated that Anderson should not
express his opinions on this or any newsgroup or forum. Nor that his comments
to the FCC should be in any way suppressed. But posting and commenting is, by
its very nature, an invitation for opposing viewpoints. Anderson seems to
regard any disagreement with his views as persecution. Fascinating.
N2EY
mark
> I caught Anderson online under his other "nomme de guerre" of
>Len...@aol.com. I tried to IM him with very civil "hellos" and "aren't you
So he has other email addresses. I happen to have at least 5
that I remember, and likely a cuople of others that I don't. ( I hope
they all forward to one that I do remember to check)
>going to at least say hello". True to form, he didn't. Saving up, I am sure
>for some venomous retort to be poured out onto RRAP.
Just where is it that you get this idea that you a right to be
answered? That you have the right to demand that people respond to
your drivel in private as well as in public. I would not be shocked
if your email address is automaticaly dumped by several posters in the
group. Indeed I am thinking about looking just how to do that myself,
you have been enough of pain to make me want think seriously about it
>
> The "jackboot" ad nauseum references are easy for a man who can't see past
>the hate and loathing of his own soul. From a Nursing perspective, even
Nurseing, and practicing medicine without a license and over
the net no less
>without having met him in person, it is easy to see how he uses Amateur Radio
>for "displaced anxiety". Something in his life is incomplete and missing, and
>he lashes out. Unfortunately WE happen to be the victims of his rath.
>
> Read back through RRAP in DejaNews and notice that 97% of his most
>venomous espousings have been against anyone with a 1 by 2 or 2 by 1 call. He
>targets Extras for this anger since we are the ultimate accomplishment of the
>licensing process.
Arent these the same class that gets most of the NAL's from
the FCC. Indeed you are the ultimate accomplishment of the licensing
process, and a good example of what is wrong with it I dubt your stats
are quite right but since most of those defending code testings are
extra class with such calls the response is so what?
> The best thing to do is simply not respond to any more of his posts and
>ignore anything he does post. When he stops getting the attention that his
>disorder demands, he'll move on.
Now I am romflmao Since you doing just you say needs to
avoided
>
>73
>
>Steve, K4YZ
>
>
Mark Morgan
KB9RQZ
Public comment welcome, indeed private email
on the Morse Code issues, esp if insulting will
become at My sole discretion
Sending Private email is deemed acceptance of these terms
Why can't people keep there flames Public?
Henry Knouse
>> >There has NEVER been any age restriction on US amateur radio licenses. There
>> >has NEVER, to my knowledge, been ANY problem in the amateur radio service
>> >caused by hams under the age of 14 that was age-related.
>> >
>> >What possible reason is there for an age limitation? What problem is there
>> >that needs to be solved?
>>
>> OK, you want four year olds to be licensed as Techs and Novices?
>
I passed my novice exam when I was 12 and got my general when I
was 13. I was considered to be a good operator. The sad fact is
that if you design an exam that no 8 or 10 year old can pass, you
will have an exam that most adults cant pass.
Henry , K7WAR
brian...@my-dejanews.com
K0...@arrl.org wrote:
> Leonard H. Anderson (presumed to be r.r.a.p.'s beloved "NoCWTest"), in
> rambling comments to the FCC on January 13th, has proposed a new restriction
> on entrance to amateur radio. He proposes that license applications from
> otherwise qualified persons should not be accepted if the applicant has not
> attained their 14th birthday.
>
> new members from youth, seems calculated to choke off new entrants and
> ultimately reduce the number of licensees below the 'critical mass' needed to
> Scouts and school-based radio clubs of this educational resource, and
> accelerate the "technical dumbing down" of America.
>
> Amateur Radio service was improperly couched in the context of "reply
> comments", all concerned persons should feel free to express their
> disagreement to the FCC, even though the period for reply comments has ended.
>
>
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Hans, did he say anything about a top limit? Brian/N0iMD
ERLPN K4YZ
>>>>Indeed I am thinking about looking just how to do that myself, you
have been enough of pain to make me want think seriously about it<<<<
Oh please, don't make me any promises you can't/won't keep!
As far as pain goes, you have no idea what pain is until you have had to
wade through one of YOUR posts!
If you'd like, I'll just killfile you again.
N2EY
In article <7aagoq$db3$1...@news1.fast.net>, "Carl R. Stevenson" <wa6...@fast.net>
writes:
>Subject: Re: Anderson proposes new licensing restrictions
>From: "Carl R. Stevenson" <wa6...@fast.net>
>Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 20:12:38 -0500
>
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>K0...@arrl.org wrote in message <7a9dn2$j54$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>>Leonard H. Anderson (presumed to be r.r.a.p.'s beloved "NoCWTest"), in
>>rambling comments to the FCC on January 13th, has proposed a new restriction
>>on entrance to amateur radio. He proposes that license applications from
>>otherwise qualified persons should not be accepted if the applicant has not
>>attained their 14th birthday.
>>
>>This arbitrary restriction, in a service which has historically gained most
>>new members from youth,
>
>That's a real ROTFLMAO, Hans ... the statistics don't support your
>assertion ... kids are staying away in droves ... the median age of
>hams is getting older and older and most new hams are adults,
>NOT kids.
Carl,
Some simple, basic, questions for you:
1) Do you support or oppose an age restriction for amateur licenses?
2) If the answer to 1) is "support", do you think the age limit should be 14?
Or some other age?
3) Do you know of ANY problems in the US amateur radio service caused by the
current no-age-limit rules?
4) If the answer to 3) is "yes", what are they?
In a word: WHY?
N2EY
N2EY
In article <19990216032529...@ngol05.aol.com>, nocw...@aol.com (No
CW Test) writes:
>Subject: Re: Anderson proposes new licensing restrictions
>From: nocw...@aol.com (No CW Test)
>Date: 16 Feb 1999 08:25:29 GMT
>
>
>In article <36C8C3...@cats-net.com>, Dave Heil <K8...@cats-net.com> writes:
>
>>K0...@arrl.org wrote:
>>>
>>> Leonard H. Anderson (presumed to be r.r.a.p.'s beloved "NoCWTest"), in
>>> rambling comments to the FCC on January 13th, has proposed a new
>>restriction
>>> on entrance to amateur radio. He proposes that license applications from
>>> otherwise qualified persons should not be accepted if the applicant has
>not
>>> attained their 14th birthday.
>
>Absolutely! The arbitrary age of 14 (approximate Grade 8 in USA) is
>considered to allow reasonable reading comprehension of the English
>language for the purposes of READING the written test elements.
If someone cannot read the written test elements, they will not pass the
written exams - regardless of age. There are plenty of 10 year olds with
12th grade reading comprehension. And there are plenty of 12th graders
with barely a 10 year old reading comprehension. The problem of reading
comprehension resolves itself. There is no reason for an age limit - unless
there is a goal other than the best interests of the amateur radio service.
>
>This would be much more honest than expecting anyone to believe that
>FOUR YEAR OLDS have reading comprehension. [see referenced ARRL
>Letter with photo]
Anderson obviously has very little understanding of human development,
specifically the capabilities of gifted young children. Anderson is challenged
to provide any credible evidence that all four year olds are incapable of
reading
comprehension. Anderson is also challenged to provide any evidence that the
licensing of young people under the age of 14 has resulted in ANY problems
for the amateur radio service that were age-related.
>
>There is NO AGE LIMIT now.
Nor does there need to be one.
>
>>> This arbitrary restriction, in a service which has historically gained
>most
>>> new members from youth, seems calculated to choke off new entrants and
>>> ultimately reduce the number of licensees below the 'critical mass' needed
>to
>>> justify our frequency allocations. He would deprive young people such as
>>> Scouts and school-based radio clubs of this educational resource, and
>>> accelerate the "technical dumbing down" of America.
>
>BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!
>
>My goodness..."choke off new entrants!" Herr Breakup wants to have an
>amateur radio community of the future to be prepubescent children?!?!?
Anderson has not given a single reason that young people under the age of 14
should not be licensed. Puberty has nothing to do with the issue.
>
>Let's hear it for the four year old Novices who have READ and UNDERSTOOD
>the written test elements and realize their responsibility in having a
>license!!!
It should be remembered that the Novice license also includes the 5 wpm code
test.
>Let's hear it for the VEs who have PASSED those CHILDREN for the FCC!!!
Even in the days of FCC testing, there were a few under-10 year olds that were
licensed.
The FCC had no problem with them.
>
>"...ultimately reduce the number of licensees below the 'critical mass'"!!!!!
>What, pray tell, does Herr Breakup think of the 170K+ Technician class
>licensees added in nine years? Are they "real hams" or is Breakup being
>a stuffed turkey about that class? Technician class licensees are the only,
>repeat ONLY, class that shows any new blood in USA amateur radio.
This is totally incorrect. Review of the license data shows several relevant
facts:
1) Most newcomers start out with the Technican class license.
2) A few newcomers start out with other classes of license.
3) Many Technicians upgrade to other classes of license. "New blood" is
"transfused" to those classes when this occurs.
4) All classes of license except Technician suffer loss due to license
expirations.
5) No post-1991 Technican class license has expired yet.
6) The Extra class also shows a small growth, despite being the most difficult
to attain.
>
>>> Since this new initiative to cripple our efforts to recruit youth to the
>>> Amateur Radio service was improperly couched in the context of "reply
>>> comments", all concerned persons should feel free to express their
>>> disagreement to the FCC, even though the period for reply comments has
>>> ended.
>
>Herr Breakup ought to get federal courts to absolutely FORBID anyone from
>commenting about radio regulations unless they are properly licensed in that
>radio service! Yes, he should. Herr Breakup seems to need his Jugend to
>satisfy His concept of keeping the traditions, legends, and myth of amateur
>radio forever.
Nowhere has Hans Brakob stated that anyone should be prevented from commenting.
>
>>All this time the sap has been crying about morse testing choking off
>>the flow of new blood into amateur radio. Now he has decided that if
>>one is under fourteen, one cannot possibly comprehend the electron or
>>understand a regulation. Guess he wants that lodge hall door locked a
>>while longer so the kids won't see him taking a pull from that HF jug.
>
>Ah yes, the warm-hearted convivial stormtrooper from central africa MUST
>make his SUPERIORITY known! Four year olds who can beep (along with
>parents who have conned the VEs into passing them) are considered
>"superior" to those who are not licensed in the amateur radio service.
Anderson is challenged to show that there were any irregularities in the
testing of the
young people involved.
N2EY
No CW Test
>Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
>
>> However, even you took pause at the thought of a 5 or 6 year old
>> tech being able to legally construct, operate, and service a 1500W
>> VHF/UHF station ...
>
>My concerns center on proper qualification, not on age. The ITU regulations
>provide an excellent set of guidelines:
>
>S25.6 Administrations shall take such measures as they judge necessary
> to verify the operational and technical qualifications of any
> person wishing to operate the apparatus of an amateur station.
>
>S25.7 The maximum power of amateur stations shall be fixed by the
> administrations concerned, having regard to the technical
> qualifications of the operators and to the conditions under
> which these stations are to operate.
>
>My recommendation to FCC in response to Docket 98-143 would place a 50W >power
limit on entry-class licensees (regardless of age).
...and that would be discriminatory to those who are of legal age and have
experience with much higher-power transmitters in other radio services. It
does carry on yet another Myth that all radio amateurs are youngsters when
they start with their first license.
>Rather than address technical qualifications, Andersons proposal would
>regulate input to our service based on age, and attach repulsive ethnic
>characterizations to those who disagree with him.
Absolutely regulating the START of an amateur based on age. However,
Brakob is reaching far outside of the subject realm in the additional
"repulsive ethnic characterizations." Ethnicity is not decided on age.
The AGE question has a distinct parallel with RESPONSIBILITY of a license.
Either that or the no-age-limit coincides with limitless irresponsibility...
No CW Test
Miccolis seems not to have been around children under 12 years of age! :-)
ANYONE who has observed children under 12 will note that there are great
and distinct differences among them which are age-related...and the younger
the child, the less the amount of responsibility. Parenting and schooling
will instill some amount of responsibility but that is an on-going thing from
babyhood on out to adult age.
>If the tests are inadequate, they should be revised. The fact that there may
>exist bright four year olds that can pass the Technician test says there may
>be a need for a revision of the test, not an age limit.
I'm at a loss to understand this apparent Myth that all radio amateurs begin
as children. While a number of them have, a considerable number of them
(at least in the last two decades or so, by observation) are already adults
when
receiving their first amateur radio license. Should the Technician class test
be revised to benefit "bright four year olds?" If so, what about the Novice
class test, the Technician Plus test, the General test, the Advanced test, the
Extra test? Why not make it all at a childish level since some have made it
a "great thing" to have a four year old Novice or a nine year old Extra? How
does that "improve" anything?
>It should be noted that Anderson's comment was to set an age limit at
>FOURTEEN, not FOUR years of age. The reason for an age limit of 14 is not
>explained by Anderson.
Breakup thinks its an "ethnic" thing...ask him.
The choice I SUGGESTED in my addition to Reply to Comments was solely
arbitrary. It could be 13 (and be "ethnic" coinciding with Bar Mitzvahs) or it
could be 12. The point was to have SOME indicator of RESPONSIBILITY
that should be attached to a license...radio waves do not obey ideas or moral
whatevers, they spritz all over and responsible licensees have the inherent
requirement to mitigate interference.
>The question remains: What problem(s) is/are caused by the licensing of
>individuals under the age of 14? I know of absolutely none that are age-
>related. This question has not been answered by Anderson.
Miccolis hasn't answered it either. :-)
>1) Anderson does not currently hold, nor has he ever held, an amateur license
>of any class. He has never posted any intent or desire to be licensed.
>
>2) Anderson's posts are uniformly derogatory of the amateur radio service as
>well as individual amateurs.
Both of those are in the "Robeson" mold...pique and petty from being
challenged in newsgroup confrontations. The above are untrue, again by
viewing DejaNews and seeing WHO gets the sharp commentary and who
does NOT.
Too many presume their OWN Personal Preferences are How It Should Be
and become highly upset when challenged on that. That seems endemic in
US amateur radio and that is unfortunate for all those yet to come...if there
is a future amateur radio service in the United States.
>> Only SOME INDIVIDUAL radio amateurs in contempt. Most definitely.
>
>Those held in esteem are apparently an extremely rare species.
Such as Paul Schleck, Bruce Perens, Fred Maia, etc., all Extras and all
against the code test? :-)
>> The amateur radio service held in contempt? No. Absolutely not.
>
>The impression given by reading Anderson's posts is exactly the opposite.
Only to those who think that US amateur radio should be a haven for the
radiotelegrapher and the radiotelegraphic skill is the highest prize in radio
operation. QED.
>> Jim, you have to realize that INDIVIDUALS are NOT "THE amateur radio
>> service," only singular licensees within that radio service.
>
>The service is the sum total of the licensees and their activities. No
>licensees, and the service ceases to exist in any meaningful form. Reducing
>the number of newcomers by means of an age limit when there is no evidence of
>an age related problem can only harm the ARS.
How can something NOT STATED by either harm or help?
By public record, the number of newcomers to US amateur radio, the
Technician class licensee, is far and away the largest and fastest-growing
class...growing so fast that their numbers almost keep the total US ARS
numbers from shrinking.
>> > He wants the ARS to either disappear,
>> >or be changed into something none of us would recognize - or want.
>>
>> Ooops, there you go, identifying YOURSELF as "US (hams)." Tsk, tsk.
>
>"Us" in the sentence above, does not mean nor imply only licensed radio
>amateurs. It includes all who are interested in the service.
You mean "amateur radio service?"
So, Jim Miccolis' opinions are equivalent/coincidental with ALL who are
interested in amateur radio?!?!? I don't think so.
<massive snip>
>Did any of them mention age limits for licenses?
>>
>> >Thanks for pointing this out, Hans.
>>
>> Witch-hunters have to stick together. Glad he got company. :-)
>
>It is not a "witch hunt". Nowhere have I stated that Anderson should not
>express his opinions on this or any newsgroup or forum. Nor that his comments
>to the FCC should be in any way suppressed. But posting and commenting is, by
>its very nature, an invitation for opposing viewpoints. Anderson seems to
>regard any disagreement with his views as persecution. Fascinating.
Anderson does not regard disagreement as "persecution." It is simply
disagreement, quite often found in discussion/debate/argument. I do
appreciate that one of a great number of opposite viewpoints believes in
frank and open discussion having disagreement. It is obvious that others in
here wish to suppress those they find disagreeable...but whatever means. :-)
It should also be noted that statements/comments made in here are often
tongue-in-cheek, sometimes with a bite on that tongue. :-)
Mike Deignan
N2EY <n2...@aol.com> wrote:
LA>Ah yes, the warm-hearted convivial stormtrooper from central africa
LA>MUST make his SUPERIORITY known! Four year olds who can beep (along
LA>with parents who have conned the VEs into passing them) are considered
LA>"superior" to those who are not licensed in the amateur radio service.
>Anderson is challenged to show that there were any irregularities in the
>testing of the young people involved.
Actually Jim, the above quote summarizes Lennie's problem in a nutshell.
It pisses him off to no end that 4-year olds are able to get ham radio
licenses, and he, well, can't (or won't).
Lennie's vitrol is sometimes amusing, most of the time boring. A cursory
review of DejaNews will show that Lennie has never had a kind word for
amateurs, or the amateur radio service.
Almost 2 decades ago when I was in my teens, we had a grandmother living
with us. She used to constantly bitch, moan, and complain. She was a
lonely, bitter old woman whose time had passed by, and her goal in life
was to make everyone else equally as miserable as her. She couldn't be
happy, then by golly neither would anyone else.
That's pretty much the Lennie Anderson of today. As a CB Radio operator,
for decades he has been on the outside of ham radio looking in. That nasty
code test has been 'holding him back'. And, by golly, if *HE* can't be a
ham operator, and be worshiped by the masses (the intellectual giant he
is), well, then nobody should be able to enjoy ham radio.
That's pretty much my mental image of Lennie. A senile old fart, rocking
in his corner rocking chair, who occasionally wipes the drool of his face,
plugs in his telephone to his 300 baud acoustic-coupler modem, and uses
his VT100 green-screen to spread hate and discontent.
MD
--
--
-- ...if it has four legs, and isn't a table, eat it.
--
-- These opinions are all mine, unless you've agreed to pay me for them.
K0...@arrl.org
K0HB wrote:
> > Leonard H. Anderson (presumed to be r.r.a.p.'s beloved "NoCWTest"), in
> > rambling comments to the FCC on January 13th, has proposed a new restriction
> > on entrance to amateur radio. He proposes that license applications from
> > otherwise qualified persons should not be accepted if the applicant has not
> > attained their 14th birthday.
...clip...
Brain asked:
> Hans, did he say anything about a top limit? Brian/N0iMD
No, so he wouldn't disqualify himself.
73, Hans, K0HB
ERLPN K4YZ
>>>>ANYONE who has observed children under 12 will note that there are
great and distinct differences among them which are age-related...(snip)<<<
And anyone that has dealt with more than ONE child knows that comparing
the actions of any two 12 year olds is like comparing apples and oranges.
I have met kids that were more mature than some electrical engineers, and
then there are some kids who will NEVER grow up.
Some close friends of mine raised one of thier granddaughters whom I met
when she was age 12, and would have thought her years older. Her dedication to
helping care for her siblings, household duties, and other conduct certainly
belied her years. She was interested in Ham Radio at one point, but passed it
up in favor of school studies and her responsibilities at home. Too bad, she
would have been a good Amateur Operator.
>>>I'm at a loss to understand this apparent Myth that all radio amateurs
begin as children...(snip)<<<
There's no "myth" save in your own mind that all Amateur's start in teen
years, but a good many do. Your selfish proposal would deny kids the
opportunity to show that they CAN conduct themselves responsiblity. In case
you haven't been watching the news lately, we could use a bit of that these
days
This is one more example of your cowardly "I'm not a Ham but I am going to
tell you how to be one" BS. Not a shread of valid reason why a 12 year old or
10 year old can't get a license...just some capricious BS about being
unresponsible.
Seems that crap on 75 meters is by people mostly YOUR age, Lennie. The
few kids in this area that I know of are considerate and thoughtful operators.
>>>The point was to have SOME indicator of RESPONSIBILITY that should be
attached to a license..<<<
And what does AGE have to do with it? Why don't we have a panel of
psychologists at the VE sessions to examine each and every applicant? Perhaps a
Rohrschac (sp?) before they can sit for a test. Maybe an essay on "Why I want
to be a Radio Amateur" in 300 words or less?
>>>Both of those are in the "Robeson" mold...pique and petty from being
challenged in newsgroup confrontations. The above are untrue, again by viewing
DejaNews and seeing WHO gets the sharp commentary and who does NOT.<<<
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>>>>Too many presume their OWN Personal Preferences are How It Should Be
and become highly upset when challenged on that. That seems endemic in US
amateur radio and that is unfortunate for all those yet to come...(snip)<<<<
What a contradiction of your own position. You first sleight America's
youth in a grand swipe at them by imposing an age limit, then lament the future
state of Amateur Radio "for all those yet to come".
How are they "yet to come" if you are going to cut some of them off at the
knees, Anderson?
>>>... if there is a future amateur radio service in the United States.<<<
What do YOU care? You aren't in it and have adamantly stated you will
never be licensed, so what do you care?
>>>Only to those who think that US amateur radio should be a haven for the
radiotelegrapher and the radiotelegraphic skill is the highest prize in radio
operation. QED.<<<
In as much as a No Code License already exisits, this is non-sequitor.
But in any case, it still comes down to what do YOU, Lennie Anderson, care?
Since you do not have, nor do you intend to procure an Amateur License, what do
YOU care that the person on the other end of the QSO is 12, 22, or 102?
I am licensed and *I* don't care! In this case, it's the messenger (the
radio and love of it) not necessarily the message that binds us. But THAT'S
the message YOU have yet to get!
>>>It should also be noted that statements/comments made in here are often
tongue-in-cheek, sometimes with a bite on that tongue. :-)<<<
Perhaps if the brain was engaged more often prior to unlashing that
tongue, you would find more "debate" and less "disagreement". Calling people
names and denigriating thier own personal accomplishments at the value your own
is demeaning. Perhaps you don't realize it, but you do it to everyone, even
those you "agree" with.
You call Extras "elitists", yet promote the idea that EE's are far more
qualified to be Amateur Radio operators than they...how ludicrous. And how
contradictory. Don't you see the fallicy of your own arguments? You argue
against yourself.
ERLPN K4YZ
>>>>The AGE question has a distinct parallel with RESPONSIBILITY of a
license.
Either that or the no-age-limit coincides with limitless irresponsibility...<<<
An absolutely indefensible statement. If this were true, we wouldn't have
need for prisons for anyone over 18. There are citizens under 18 that are far
more responsible Amateurs than some who are two, three even four times thier
age.
If they are able to focus enough to study for a license, I dare say they
can operate a rice-burner 2meter rig safely enough.
Dick Carroll
>
> K0HB wrote:
>
> Leonard H. Anderson proposes that license applications from
> otherwise qualified persons should not be accepted if the applicant has not
> attained their 14th birthday.
>
In thre extremely unlikely event that this proposal ever
reaches NPRM status, I'll just send in comments including
information on my grandson who just turned 12 last month. He
reads above the high school level, and upon entering 6th
grade last fall he took an acheivment test for all entering
6th graders on which made the top score in his state.
I imagine there are plenty of other examples around to
shoot Hootie the Blowfish's assinine proposal completely out
of the water. He's just trying to stir something up, yet
again. Trollism at it's height.
Dick C
David Moisan
>
>Rather than address technical qualifications, Andersons proposal would
>regulate input to our service based on age, and attach repulsive ethnic
>characterizations to those who disagree with him.
De facto, we already "regulate based on age". It goes by such phrases
as, "In the Good Old Days, I wasn't a punk like you!", "I didn't have
*that* when *I* was your age, SO WHY SHOULD YOU?!" and other bitter
statements like it.
People want warm 10-year old bodies in ham radio--as long as they are
perfect and entered radio JUST THE SAME WAY *THEY* DID. Otherwise,
there's endless whining that kids prefer computers, Nintendo, etc.,
when it's little wonder that they'll do so because *we* are our own
poor PR, praising the "good old days" that may as well be from Mars
where kids are concerned.
Hans, I thought your letter in a recent QST was brilliant. Then I saw
you here and I am most bitterly disappointed in you.
Take care,
Dave
David Moisan, N1KGH n1...@amsat.org
http://www1.shore.net/~dmoisan
Invisible Disability: http://www1.shore.net/~dmoisan/invisible_disability.html
GE Superradio FAQ: http://www1.shore.net/~dmoisan/faqs/superradio/gesr_faq.html
K0...@arrl.org
I said:
> >Rather than address technical qualifications, Andersons proposal would
> >regulate input to our service based on age, and attach repulsive ethnic
> >characterizations to those who disagree with him.
Dave Moison responds:
> De facto, we already "regulate based on age". It goes by such phrases
> as, "In the Good Old Days, I wasn't a punk like you!", "I didn't have
> *that* when *I* was your age, SO WHY SHOULD YOU?!" and other bitter
> statements like it.
Maybe in your neighborhood. Personally, I have found amateur radio to be
mostly age-independent. One of the most technically and operationally
talented hams I know was 17 years old when I met him, and still well south of
25 years old. His license class happens to be Tech+, in case anyone is
counting, but that also is pretty much a non-issue.
> Hans, I thought your letter in a recent QST was brilliant. Then I saw
> you here and I am most bitterly disappointed in you.
Sorry you're disappointed in me. My message here on UseNet is the same
message in my recent QST letter, which is "Let's quit pixxing and moaning
about how we are different from each other, find the common things which
unite us as Amateur Radio licensees, and build from that.
73, de Hans, K0HB
ma...@pixar.com
n2...@aol.com (N2EY) wrote:
> Carl,
>
> Some simple, basic, questions for you:
>
> 1) Do you support or oppose an age restriction for amateur licenses?
If ham radio has a problem, it's that far too few young people are
involved. I think no good can come from hampering their efforts to become
hams.
> 2) If the answer to 1) is "support", do you think the age limit should be 14?
> Or some other age?
> 3) Do you know of ANY problems in the US amateur radio service caused by the
> current no-age-limit rules?
> 4) If the answer to 3) is "yes", what are they?
>
> In a word: WHY?
I find it somewhat confusing that with respect to this issue, you seem to
understand that further regulations can cause a stifling of growth, and that
the lack of regulation causes no serious problems, when you can't seem to see
that with respect to the code test issue.
Mark
> N2EY
n2...@aol.com
ma...@pixar.com wrote:
> In article <19990217013555...@ngol02.aol.com>,
> n2...@aol.com (N2EY) wrote:
>
> > Carl,
> >
> > Some simple, basic, questions for you:
> >
> > 1) Do you support or oppose an age restriction for amateur licenses?
>
> If ham radio has a problem, it's that far too few young people are
> involved. I think no good can come from hampering their efforts to become
> hams.
Hello Mark,
Agreed. Yet Carl seems to support the idea of age restrictions.
>
> > 2) If the answer to 1) is "support", do you think the age limit should be
14?
> > Or some other age?
> > 3) Do you know of ANY problems in the US amateur radio service caused by the
> > current no-age-limit rules?
> > 4) If the answer to 3) is "yes", what are they?
> >
> > In a word: WHY?
>
> I find it somewhat confusing that with respect to this issue, you seem to
> understand that further regulations can cause a stifling of growth, and that
> the lack of regulation causes no serious problems, when you can't seem to see
> that with respect to the code test issue.
There has never been an age requirement for a US ham license, and the
proponents of age limits cannot point to a single problem that is caused by
the licensing of young people. They have not demonstrated how the service is
being harmed by the lack of an age limit, or how it would be improved by an
age limit. The proponents of change have not provided any evidence.
On the other hand, there has always been a code test for an HF amateur
license. That fact in itself is not a reason to continue code testing.
However, removing the code test requirement could have profound negative
effects on the amateur radio service. That's the reason for all of the
opposition to removing the code test. The proponents of the change have to
provide the evidence for the change. In the opinions of some, they have - but
in the opinions of others, they haven't.
The code test has been made the scapegoat of many problems in amateur radio,
without any proof. The lack of growth in recent years is implicitly blamed in
your post, Mark, but there is no proof provided. There are many other reasons
for the lack of growth in the ARS:
- High cost of equipment
- Competition from other radio services (CB, FRS, etc.)
- Competition from other "techie" hobbies (computers, internet, r/c, etc.)
- High cost of equipment
- Unbalanced license structure (not enough privileges for Tech Plus)
- Long sunspot minimum
- Demographic and economic changes
- Antenna restrictions
- Lack of publicity
From the late 1970s to the late 1980s, the ARS grew from ~330,000 hams to
over 500,000 - ALL of them codetested. The growth of the ARS since the
dropping of the code test for Techs has not equaled that of the preceding
years. The number of newcomers has not changed significantly because of the
1991 change. That indicates that the code test is NOT a reason for the lack
of growth.
The problem is that we cannot conduct experiments in this area. Can we drop
code testing for a predetermined period, and if growth does not increase by a
predetermined amount, put it back? I don't think so.
The proponent of an age limit wants to add a restriction that practically
nobody thinks is needed. The proponents of nocode want to remove a
qualification that they think is no longer needed, but that many others think
is still needed. Big difference.
73 de Jim, N2EY
Dick Carroll
>
> In article <19990217013555...@ngol02.aol.com>,
> n2...@aol.com (N2EY) wrote:
>
> > Carl,
> >
> > Some simple, basic, questions for you:
> >
> > 1) Do you support or oppose an age restriction for amateur licenses?
>
> If ham radio has a problem, it's that far too few young people are
> involved. I think no good can come from hampering their efforts to become
> hams.
>
You know, if there are any oldtimers left at FCC they are
sure to be pretty disgusted by now. After all, FCC has all
but given away ham licenses of darn near every class for the
last dozen years, and still something is "hampering" people
from their efforts, yada yada yada. Gotta be sickening to
hear, to them.
I imagine by now they're wondering when you all will
demand payment for your time and trouble.
Dick C
Dick Carroll
> >regulate input to our service based on age, and attach repulsive ethnic
> >characterizations to those who disagree with him.
>
> as, "In the Good Old Days, I wasn't a punk like you!", "I didn't have
> *that* when *I* was your age, SO WHY SHOULD YOU?!" and other bitter
> statements like it.
>
Only one problem with all this Dave--It's all in your mind.
Back off and take an objective look and you may, hopefully,
be able to see it for what it really is. Almost all of the
pro code people posting here have made statements in support
of General class HF access at the 5wpm code test level. So
now, the cry has changed to "Do away with it completely!"
just like we always knew it would. One wonders what would
happen if they DID that (but they are not going to any time
soon, so we can relax).
Maybe you're just venting bile that has accumulated for
the long time that you've resisted learning code and
actually getting a useful ham license - one that gives HF
access, of course, if any other class was considered useful
we'd not be hanging out on this NG at all, much less
generating this volume of verbiage.
Dick C
Bill Sohl
>There has never been an age requirement for a US ham license, and the
>proponents of age limits cannot point to a single problem that is caused by
>the licensing of young people. They have not demonstrated how the service is
>being harmed by the lack of an age limit, or how it would be improved by an
>age limit. The proponents of change have not provided any evidence.
I too see NO reason to get into age limits. I think in many cases
those of very low age that have been licensed are then totally under
the tutillage of an older (usually paraent) ham in the same household
anyway. To me it would serve no valid purpose.
>On the other hand, there has always been a code test for an HF amateur
>license. That fact in itself is not a reason to continue code testing.
Agreed.
>However, removing the code test requirement could have profound negative
>effects on the amateur radio service.
Such as?
>That's the reason for all of the
>opposition to removing the code test.
I doubt that is how the FCC will see it.
>The proponents of the change have to
>provide the evidence for the change.
NOPE...the FCC has been mandated by congress to revisit
and remove unnecessary regulations. That clearly places
the BURDEN of proof on those that wish to retain code
testing.
>In the opinions of some, they have - but
>in the opinions of others, they haven't.
The only reason needed is that there is NO rational,
compelling reason to retain code testing. The only caveat
to that being absolute is the current ITU treaty
requirement which is met by 5wpm.
>The code test has been made the scapegoat of many problems in amateur radio,
>without any proof.
I totally agree, which is why I don't subscribe to
that argument as being of any value in the code test
debate.
>There are many other reasons
>for the lack of growth in the ARS:
Agreed.
>- High cost of equipment
>- Competition from other radio services (CB, FRS, etc.)
>- Competition from other "techie" hobbies (computers, internet, r/c, etc.)
>- High cost of equipment
>- Unbalanced license structure (not enough privileges for Tech Plus)
>- Long sunspot minimum
>- Demographic and economic changes
>- Antenna restrictions
>- Lack of publicity
All valid reasons for why anyone might not become a
ham.
>From the late 1970s to the late 1980s, the ARS grew from ~330,000 hams to
>over 500,000 - ALL of them codetested. The growth of the ARS since the
>dropping of the code test for Techs has not equaled that of the preceding
>years. The number of newcomers has not changed significantly because of the
>1991 change. That indicates that the code test is NOT a reason for the lack
>of growth.
Well that is an opinion anyway.
>The problem is that we cannot conduct experiments in this area. Can we drop
>code testing for a predetermined period, and if growth does not increase by a
>predetermined amount, put it back? I don't think so.
Again, the dropping of code testing shouldn't even be
based on the growth statistics of amateur radio. Code
should go for...(well you know the pitch).
>The proponent of an age limit wants to add a restriction that practically
>nobody thinks is needed.
Agree.
>The proponents of nocode want to remove a
>qualification that they think is no longer needed, but that many others think
>is still needed. Big difference.
I agree that there's a difference. As for
the final decision, it is now up to the FCC.
Cheers,
Bill K2UNK
n2...@aol.com
nocw...@aol.com (No CW Test) wrote:
> >Anderson is challenged to demonstrate that a four year old child that can
> >pass the exams unaided cannot be a responsible amateur radio operator.
>
> Miccolis seems not to have been around children under 12 years of age! :-)
Anderson knows nothing of my experience with children. It is, in fact rather
extensive. Anderson has not met the above challenge - he has not demonstrated
that a four year old child (or a person of any age) who can pass the exams
unaided cannot be a responsible amateur radio operator. He also has not given
evidence of ANY problems experienced by the ARS due to the lack of an age
requirement.
As usual, Anderson is long on opinions and short on facts. All show and no go.
:-)
>
> ANYONE who has observed children under 12 will note that there are great
> and distinct differences among them which are age-related...and the younger
> the child, the less the amount of responsibility.
ANYONE who has observed children under 12 will note that some are capable of
high levels of responsibility, and others are not. It is a function of
developmental age, not physical age.
Parenting and schooling
> will instill some amount of responsibility but that is an on-going thing from
> babyhood on out to adult age.
It is a lifelong process. That is only common sense. But Anderson postulates
without evidence that a particular age must be reached before adequate
responsibility is learned for an amateur radio license.
>
> >If the tests are inadequate, they should be revised. The fact that there may
> >exist bright four year olds that can pass the Technician test says there may
> >be a need for a revision of the test, not an age limit.
>
> I'm at a loss to understand this apparent Myth that all radio amateurs begin
> as children.
No one has stated that all radio amateurs begin as children.
> While a number of them have, a considerable number of them
> (at least in the last two decades or so, by observation) are already adults
> when
> receiving their first amateur radio license.
No one denies that. Indeed, people of all ages are being licensed today. That
is a good thing.
> Should the Technician class test
> be revised to benefit "bright four year olds?" If so, what about the Novice
> class test, the Technician Plus test, the General test, the Advanced test, the
> Extra test? Why not make it all at a childish level since some have made it
> a "great thing" to have a four year old Novice or a nine year old Extra? How
> does that "improve" anything?
Noone has suggested revising any license tests to benefit young people. The
above mention of revision is clearly in the opposite direction. It says:
"If the tests are inadequate, they should be revised. The fact that there may
exist bright four year olds that can pass the Technician test says there may
be a need for a revision of the test, not an age limit."
The meaning of the above is clear - if the tests are too easy, they should be
improved. Nothing is stated or implied that they should be revised to
accomodate children.
Anderson has stated concern about the reading comprehension of those under the
age of 14. Anderson would do well to be more concerned about his own lack of
reading comprehension. :-)
>
> >It should be noted that Anderson's comment was to set an age limit at
> >FOURTEEN, not FOUR years of age. The reason for an age limit of 14 is not
> >explained by Anderson.
>
> Breakup thinks its an "ethnic" thing...ask him.
Anderson proposed the 14 year old limit, not Hans Brakob, K0HB.
>
> The choice I SUGGESTED in my addition to Reply to Comments was solely
> arbitrary. It could be 13 (and be "ethnic" coinciding with Bar Mitzvahs) or
it
> could be 12.
It could be none at all.
> The point was to have SOME indicator of RESPONSIBILITY
> that should be attached to a license...radio waves do not obey ideas or moral
> whatevers, they spritz all over and responsible licensees have the inherent
> requirement to mitigate interference.
The indicator is that the applicant has passed the license test. In the case
of minor children, parental assistance is needed to obtain the license - four
year olds don't go to VE sessions alone.
>
> >The question remains: What problem(s) is/are caused by the licensing of
> >individuals under the age of 14? I know of absolutely none that are age-
> >related. This question has not been answered by Anderson.
>
> Miccolis hasn't answered it either. :-)
Again, Anderson's reading comprehension fails. It is obvious that Anderson has
no such information, and only wishes create problems where none exist.
>
> >1) Anderson does not currently hold, nor has he ever held, an amateur license
> >of any class. He has never posted any intent or desire to be licensed.
> >
> >2) Anderson's posts are uniformly derogatory of the amateur radio service as
> >well as individual amateurs.
>
> Both of those are in the "Robeson" mold...pique and petty from being
> challenged in newsgroup confrontations.
They are both facts. Anderson is challenged to show otherwise.
Dejanews quotes are simple to retrieve - a child can do it. :-)
> The above are untrue, again by
> viewing DejaNews and seeing WHO gets the sharp commentary and who
> does NOT.
Those who disagree with Anderson are insulted, attacked, and given childish
nicknames by Anderson. Those who agree are ignored.
>
> Too many presume their OWN Personal Preferences are How It Should Be
> and become highly upset when challenged on that.
Anderson obviously knows whereof he speaks, as he simply cannot tolerate
differing opinions. Or facts which do not match his preconceptions.
> That seems endemic in
> US amateur radio and that is unfortunate for all those yet to come...if there
> is a future amateur radio service in the United States.
That future is not being aided in any way by Anderson, who seeks only to
argue.
>
> >> Only SOME INDIVIDUAL radio amateurs in contempt. Most definitely.
> >
> >Those held in esteem are apparently an extremely rare species.
>
> Such as Paul Schleck, Bruce Perens, Fred Maia, etc., all Extras and all
> against the code test? :-)
Three names - that makes them a rare species, given the 74,000 Extra class
licensees.
It is obvious that the only qualification for Anderson's "esteem" is agreement
on a single issue.
>
> >> The amateur radio service held in contempt? No. Absolutely not.
> >
> >The impression given by reading Anderson's posts is exactly the opposite.
>
> Only to those who think that US amateur radio should be a haven for the
> radiotelegrapher and the radiotelegraphic skill is the highest prize in radio
> operation. QED.
Anderson is again challenged to show posts in which anything other than
contempt is shown by him for the amateur radio service.
>
> >> Jim, you have to realize that INDIVIDUALS are NOT "THE amateur radio
> >> service," only singular licensees within that radio service.
> >
> >The service is the sum total of the licensees and their activities. No
> >licensees, and the service ceases to exist in any meaningful form. Reducing
> >the number of newcomers by means of an age limit when there is no evidence of
> >an age related problem can only harm the ARS.
>
> How can something NOT STATED by either harm or help?
Anderson stated the need for an age limit. Without evidence of any need.
>
> By public record, the number of newcomers to US amateur radio, the
> Technician class licensee, is far and away the largest and fastest-growing
> class...growing so fast that their numbers almost keep the total US ARS
> numbers from shrinking.
Again, Anderson distorts by omission. The Technician class is the route of
most, but not all, newcomers. It is the largest and fastest growing class in
large part because it is the simplest license to get, gives good privileges,
and NONE OF THEM HAVE EXPIRED YET.
Every month, however, a significant percentage of Technicians upgrade to other
classes.
In addition, the number of newcomers is not significantly greater than that of
the 1980s, when all US amateur licenses required a code test. The 1991 change
did not cause large scale growth in the ARS.
Anderson ignores all of the facts for a simple reason - they disprove his
claims.
>
> >> > He wants the ARS to either disappear,
> >> >or be changed into something none of us would recognize - or want.
> >>
> >> Ooops, there you go, identifying YOURSELF as "US (hams)." Tsk, tsk.
> >
> >"Us" in the sentence above, does not mean nor imply only licensed radio
> >amateurs. It includes all who are interested in the service.
>
> You mean "amateur radio service?"
Yes, the amateur radio service. However, the amateur radio service is open to
all who can pass the required tests. Practically all who are interested in the
amateur radio service in a positive way get a license of one class or another.
>
> So, Jim Miccolis' opinions are equivalent/coincidental with ALL who are
> interested in amateur radio?!?!? I don't think so.
That was not stated at all. Nor implied. Nowhere have I posted that ANYONE'S
opinions should not be heard. Just that some opinions are well thought out,
and others are not.
Are Len Anderson's opinions equivalent/coincidental with ALL who are
interested in amateur radio?!?!? NO.
> >> >Thanks for pointing this out, Hans.
> >>
> >> Witch-hunters have to stick together. Glad he got company. :-)
> >
> >It is not a "witch hunt". Nowhere have I stated that Anderson should not
> >express his opinions on this or any newsgroup or forum. Nor that his comments
> >to the FCC should be in any way suppressed. But posting and commenting is, by
> >its very nature, an invitation for opposing viewpoints. Anderson seems to
> >regard any disagreement with his views as persecution. Fascinating.
>
> Anderson does not regard disagreement as "persecution."
Anderson's behavior speaks otherwise.
> It is simply
> disagreement, quite often found in discussion/debate/argument. I do
> appreciate that one of a great number of opposite viewpoints believes in
> frank and open discussion having disagreement.
There are lots of us who can tolerate disgreement. Try it - it can be a
rewarding experience.
> It is obvious that others in
> here wish to suppress those they find disagreeable...but whatever means. :-)
"Suppress"? I see nothing of that in my posts or Hans'
>
> It should also be noted that statements/comments made in here are often
> tongue-in-cheek, sometimes with a bite on that tongue. :-)
It is noted that statements here are often made with two more distantly
separated anatomical structures juxtapositioned. :-)
n2...@aol.com
mik...@conan.ids.net (Mike Deignan) wrote:
> In article <19990217013557...@ngol02.aol.com>,
> N2EY <n2...@aol.com> wrote:
> LA>Four year olds who can beep (along
> LA>with parents who have conned the VEs into passing them) are
> LA>"superior" to those who are not licensed in the amateur radio service.
>
> >Anderson is challenged to show that there were any irregularities in the
> >testing of the young people involved.
>
> It pisses him off to no end that 4-year olds are able to get ham radio
> licenses, and he, well, can't (or won't).
Hello Mike,
That seems the most logical explanation.
Upon review, it seems that perhaps when Anderson wrote "Ah yes, the warm-
hearted convivial stormtrooper from central africa" who "MUST make his
SUPERIORITY known!" he was referring to himself.
>
> Lennie's vitrol is sometimes amusing, most of the time boring. A cursory
> review of DejaNews will show that Lennie has never had a kind word for
> amateurs, or the amateur radio service.
Agreed. I have read practically all of his posts since September 1997. Not a
one had anything complimentary to say about ham radio or hams.
>
> Almost 2 decades ago when I was in my teens, we had a grandmother living
> with us. She used to constantly bitch, moan, and complain. She was a
> lonely, bitter old woman whose time had passed by, and her goal in life
> was to make everyone else equally as miserable as her. She couldn't be
> happy, then by golly neither would anyone else.
I have known a few such induhviduals. The idea that someone, somewhere, might
be having fun drove them crazy. Particularly if it was fun they did not
approve of.
>
> That's pretty much the Lennie Anderson of today. As a CB Radio operator,
> for decades he has been on the outside of ham radio looking in. That nasty
> code test has been 'holding him back'. And, by golly, if *HE* can't be a
> ham operator, and be worshiped by the masses (the intellectual giant he
> is), well, then nobody should be able to enjoy ham radio.
But the code test for full VHF/UHF amateur privileges was removed eight years
ago. The code test doesn't stop anyone from being a radio amateur. Just an
HF/MF one.
73 de Jim, N2EY
> -- ...if it has four legs, and isn't a table, eat it.
Even if it's a chair?