Bill Sohl wrote:

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

Bill Sohl wrote:


"Mike Coslo" wrote in message

snippage

Two questions...
1. What "other members" (I presume you mean Board Members), other
than W5YI, do NOT support retention of technical acumen?

They don't have to be Board members, Bill. And I don't have their names
off the top of my head.

If you like, I can retract the "members" statement, and substitute
"member" or "prominent member". Although I think that's almost like
saying a person's argument is invalid because they made a typo.

Bottom line, without names, the statement is grossly misleading
as you apear to try and broaden your claim to NCI in general...
which is absolutely false.

Bottom line, I have never accused NCI of having any particular
opinion.

I wrote:

Instead, some members express "unofficial opinions that scare the
bejabbers out of me.


That's the point. "Unofficial opinions". That alone, regardless
of what you say, creates an impression that there is an "unofficial
'NCI' opinion". If a person has their own opinion about
something, that isn't "official" or "unofficial" by itself. Adding the
"unofficial opinion" label in talking about an NCI
member DOES create a different perception than simply
saying John Doe has an opinion that scares me.

I have a question. There is no doubt that NCI is a political
organization. So this is a fair question.

Why don't you ask a good conservative Republican what they think of the
new Govorner of California's stand on say, abortion, or say same sex
marriages? So while his opinion doesn't really have that much to do with
the national scene, therefore it isn't relevant to anything but himself,
I do know that there are plenty of the above mentioned conservatives
that don't think a whole lot of him or his opinion at all.


Back to now:

Who is broadening any claim? I even put unofficial opinions on my

sentence.

Your trying to pin me down on this is amusing, since the membership
rolls of NCI are a closely guarded secret. The only way we know is if
the member outs him or her self.


Then how can you even make the statement that some "members" have
opinions that scare you IF you can't even identify them.

I just identified two.

I don't like Han's entry level license requirement either. He's a member.


BUT, his NCI membership doesn't tie NCI to Han's personal support
for an entry level license.

But he certainly serves as another data point. Why don't we go over
some stuff.

You (apparently) don't support any change in anything except the
elimination of Element one.

W5YI supports what to me seems to be a radical simplification and
*******ization of the ARS requirements.

Hans has a plan that I generally don't like. I must say that he does
address the issue of needed change when element one disappears.

So forgive me, but I think I can form an opinion and defend it.

All I propose is strengthening the requirements of what exists now, and
otherwise leaving things intact. I would really encourage going into the
regulations and cleaning them up after the changover.

And yes, since NCI sees itself as the vanguard of change, I see NCI as
derelict in it's duties. To just say "eliminate the Code test" really
isn't enough.

- Mike KB3EIA -