RadioBanter - View Single Post

December 21st 03, 08:25 PM

N2EY wrote:

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

In article ,
(Brian) writes:

(N2EY) wrote in message
le.com...

Ah, there's where your logic fails, Dave. You're working on a false
premise.

You're *assuming* that everyone who has an opinion on amateur radio
policy issues is interested in amateur radio having the best possible
future. And in most cases that's true - but not when Mr. Anderson is
involved. His behavior here, and his comments to FCC, indicate that
he's *not* interested in what's best for amateur radio. He's just
interested in stirring up division, discord and hostility between
amateurs, diverting them from other issues, and denying amateur
traditions and contributions to society and the radio art.

Inventive Licensing comes to mind as the big divider.

:-)

;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-)
;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-)
;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-)
;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-)
;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-)

Suppose someone really hated amateur radio and wanted to damage it as
much as possible without being obvious about what they were doing.

Wouldn't one way to do that be to try to maximize internal bickering
and arguing among hams, thereby diverting them from useful discussion?

One could propose to the FCC a licensing structure with multiple
levels, multiple exams, and multiple privelege slices and power
levels.

Another way is to have everyone believe in the same thing...as is
published every month in a certain membership magazine.

What magazine is that, Ellsworth...err, Leonard?

As a single "authoritative voice," a New England membership
group DEFINES everything in amateurism for all amateurs. No
bickering, no dissension, no arguing. All do as They say.
No problems. Everyone happy in Nirvana.

Which group and which magazine? ham radio and 73 magazines were New England
based, but they're both defunct.

Your description of a membership organization that does not tolerate dissent
sounds exactly like NoCode International. Right in their bylaws it says that
any member who publicly disagrees with their stated position on code testing is
subject to expulsion. They also require that all members agree to their prime
directive goal as a condition of membership. No one who disagrees with their
core policy can be a member of NoCode International.

I'm not saying that's right or wrong, just stating facts.

And now some puzzle pieces fit together. I can now reconcile Carl's
vision of how leaders are supposed to lead and his organization. Strong
leadership, independent from member opinion, and if you don't like it,
you're out.

Umm, no thanks.

- Mike KB3EIA -