RadioBanter - View Single Post

March 11th 05, 07:16 PM

wrote:

wrote:
From: Dave Heil who, blabbering away on an obvious Troll topic,
scribbled on Thurs, Mar 10 2005 12:14 am:

wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:

You forget his comments to FCC about things like an age
requirement....

He wishes I'd forget about his comments on the minimum age
requirement
for radio amateurs.

Tsk. So hard up for Personal Attack subjects that
you pick something from my Comment to the FCC made
SIX YEARS AGO? Wasn't done in here first...

Why is it a "Personal Attack" to disagree with your comments, Len?

It is also a personal attack when you quote something Len has written.

You wanted FCC to deny amateur licenses to anyone under the age of
14, regardless of their ability to pass the required tests.

Yet you have not produced one single bit of evidence that the licensing
of people under the age of 14 has produced *any* problems for the
amateur radio service.

Not one example of an under-14 ham violating any rules, getting an NAL
or enforcement letter, or even complaints from other hams.

Okay, I'll wait until you stop cheering for all the
"mature, responsible" six-year-olds featured on the
ARRL news as "world's youngest hams?" Riiiiight...
mature and responsible ALL BY THEMSELVES! :-)

You would forbid people more than twice as old from getting an amateur
license, Len. Without any evidence.

Len's posts on the subject indicate that he has problems with children
having done something which he himself has not attained.

How about the 9-year-old "extra?" A "mature,
responsible, law-abiding" pre-teener? :-)

Yes.

Riiiiight...ALL of them wouldn't think of operating
without parental supervision, would they? Uh-huh.

Why should they need parental supervision to operate? FCC,
the expert agency on US civil radio regulation, thinks they're
qualified.

My parents didn't supervise me or need to supervise me when I operated
as a fourteen-year-old Novice. Did your parents ever supervise you,
Jim?

Back in 1948, a 9-year-old local girl passed the Class B exam. In front
of the FCC examiner.

This was back when the license test required diagram drawing and had
essay questions. 13 wpm code, sending and receiving, too. No Novice
class back then, either, it was Class B from a standing start.

Now of course her dad was a ham and she had lots of help. But if the
FCC then and now thought young people were qualified to be hams, and
you have no evidence of problems caused by their youth, why should
there be an age limit?

You're writing of the late Jesse Bieberman's daughter?

Tsk. I've never pursued the matter with the FCC
since 1999 but it seems some in here just can't let
it go.

Why should they? You have not admitted that age requirements for a ham
license are a bad idea.

He issued the comments to the Commission. He never followed it up with
a retraction if he changed his mind. All indications (even those in
this recent post) are that Len stills believes that licensing children
is a bad thing.

They MUST bring it up again, time and time
again as if this is the most hideous of gaffes,
practically a felonious act against the noble, law-
fearing amateurs who never, ever do anything wrong.

I don't see it as the most hideous of gaffes, just one in a long string
of gaffes.

You would deny licenses to people based solely on age, without
*any* evidence of age-related problems.

That's just plain wrong.

But we'll never see agreement on that from Leonard.

Dave K8MN