Bill Sohl wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
t...
KØHB wrote:
"Bill Sohl" wrote
BUT, his NCI membership doesn't tie NCI to Han's personal support
for an entry level license.
Are you saying that NCI does not reciprocate my support for their goals?
That would certainly be a strange sort of membership-organization.
Sorry Hans! Only elimination of the Test!
Essentually correct. NCI doesn't take positions on the wider
scope of testing and opinions held by any individual member.
Indeed, one could readily see where two members might have totally
opposite opinions on written testing.
And that is what bothers me about NCI.
Why that bothers anyone makes no sense to me. Indeed, we are
damned if we do, damn;ed if we don't. We formed as a "one issue"
organization and now some folks are bothered by that...strange,
truly strange.
Well, I'm sorry about it Bill, but that is how it works. Spoils of success.
In the world of politics, there is no such thing as a one issue
organization. When agitating for the addition or removal of something,
there must be some kind of plan for afterward. If there is no plan, then
one of two things happened. Either there was an immense amount of
naivety, or a concept of "no plan for the aftermath" was made".
I'm bothered by it now because I'm new to the ARS and didn't even know
about NCI in it's early years. I would have taken NCI members to task if
I was a ham then.
But it is a great way to dodge responsibility! 8^)
Dodge responsibilities? So exactly what does that mean?
What specific "responsibility" is NCI dodging?
Did I miss some unstated responsibility of NCI and/or any
other ham club or organization?
Yes you did miss it, IMO! What other Morse code pro/con advocacy groups
are there? NCI is the one standing around when the change happened, it
happened their way, and now all we hear is some people's personal
beliefs when they should be at least putting together a plan for the
aftermath of the ARS, post Element one. The two I have seen I'm not
overwhelmed with.
So I will be yapping about what I percieve to be a *grave* error in
omission.
- Mike KB3EIA -
|