"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...


Carl R. Stevenson wrote:

"KØHB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote

|
| I think there are two sides to every coin .... and there are subtle,
yet
| important, differences between "leadership" and "representation."
|

There are important differences between "leadership" and
"representation" but they are NOT subtle!

"Representation" says "Elect me and I will do whatever is the most
popular based on the last poll, regardless if it's in our best
interest."

"Leadership" says "Elect me and I will do whatever is our best interest,
regardless how unpopular."

73, de Hans, K0HB



Hans,

I disagree. The differences are more subtle - and much less cynical -
that
you state.


Would you do whatever your constituants asked, as long as it was a
majority opinion?

Even if you knew it was wrong?

Mike,

If it was morally wrong (like killing, etc.) or illegal, no ... of course
not.

But the ARRL proposals don't fall into either category, nor do the NCVEC
proposals.

NCI's comments state *what our members said they think about the ARRL and
NCVEC proposals* ... with the percentages from the surveys.

I believe the surveys were scientifically and statistically sound (and
secure):
the response rate was just over 50% - exceptionally good for surveys by
virtually any standard
each respondent had an individually assigned unique password, that was sent
to them by e-mail (by a "merge" from the member database)
then they were sent an "invitation" from the survey site (same mailing list
used) with a unique URL corresponding to their invitation/password
the survey site only allows one response per respondent (and tracks IP
addresses to make it easy to do a quick check to see if someone is trying to
hack it to "stack the deck"), etc.

So, what is "wrong" with NCI telling the FCC what its members said they
think about the ARRL and NCVEC petitions?

Carl - wk3c