Dave,
I *have* had strong differences of opinion with the ARRL BoD's policies in
the past, particularly with respect to code testing, but the code test issue
is essentially a dead issue now, since the NPRM makes the FCC's intent very
clear and I simply don't see anyone presenting any new arguments for keeping
code testing that the FCC hasn't already considered and rejected, let alone
one that's rational and compelling.
I disagree with the current form/implementation of the "regulation by
bandplan" plan that has (virtually) everyone upset and have stated so quite
publicly.
I don't think it should go forward until it's fixed to the satisfaction of
at least a significant majority, so yes, I still have differences of opinion
with some of what's being done by the BoD - and I'm getting a tremendous
amount of feedback that the membership does as well.
"Dave Heil" wrote in message
ink.net...
Carl Stevenson 1997
Taking selective quotes in isolation and out of context can be misleading
.... besides, my views have changed in some areas and I have learned to be
less confrontational over the years since these relatively ancient quotes
that you dredged up were posted (and, what has gone on in the relatively
distant past in heated debates on usenet has never been indicative of my
behavior on the air ...)
"We'd be better off if we could, instead, find a way to reeducate the
whining olde fartz ... those whose knowledge of radio is frozen in the 30s
and 40s somewhere don't deserve their licenses today, no matter how fast
they can beep ..."
Even Mr. Hollingsworth, I'm told, has refered to "BOFs" (bitter old farts).
My comment about "deserving licenses today" refers to those who have never
gotten past the tube stage and probably couldn't pass today's written tests.
As you will see from my campaign statement, I strongly believe that the ARRL
needs to provide much better and more extensive technical eductation
programs, both for newcomers and as "refreshers" for long-time hams, so that
we can inprove the general level of technical competence in our ranks.
Carl Stevenson 1998:
"The majority of the opposition is, IMNSHO, based on people's
experiences with "frequency coordinators" who warehouse frequencies
for private repeaters for their cronies and an ARRL which is
totally out of touch with today's world, tries at every turn to
thwart progress in favor of the status quo of stagnancy and decay,
and could care less what the majority of hams feel or believe."
Everywhere I go (clubs and hamfests), I'm getting a tremendous amount of
feedback/input that members *widely* believe that the League's leadership IS
out of touch, both with the membership and with many of the realities of
today's world. (So I'm not alone in that view by ANY stretch of the
imagination, which is one of my primary reasons for running. The other
reason is that, after enjoying the benefits of ham radio for about 30 years,
I'm at a point in my life where I'm in a position to give something back and
I want to do so.)
"In a word, 'bull****,' Ed ... it's just that the majority of hams who are
not ARRL members (and even many of us who ARE) know full-well how the
good-old-boy politics of the ARRL work and have seen this type of move
coming for some time."
" More BS, Ed ... the ARRL's sleazy attempt at end-run regulation
speaks volumes about the ARRL."
"I freely admit my bias against current (counting the past few decades)
ARRL policy and current 'leadership.' I am by no means a 'lone wolf'
in holding this opinion."
This, if I recall correctly, was in response to the League's attempt to
effectively codify bandplans. That's what I meant by "end-run regulation."
Ed and I have long since gotten past my arguing with him and being
suspicious that he was "just a party line man," and we are good friends (I'm
also on good terms with Dave Sumner, Paul Rinaldo, and others at HQ and have
been working with them on BPL).
However, the basic thrust, while it could have been worded more
"diplomatically," is still an issue and something that I'm also hearing
from the membership as I visit clubs and hamfests.
Carl Stevenson 1999:
"I don't think we should establish 'protected class' setasides
for ANY legacy technology ... "
I have actually CHANGED that view to some extent ... I could support a
reasonable "CW only" section at the bottom of each HF band. I do NOT
support phone band expansion at the expense of CW and data. I believe that
the "robot" stations that are causing harmful interference because they
can't adequately detect and avoid ongoing operations (due largely to "hidden
terminal" effects resulting fromt he nature of HF propagation) should NOT be
allowed to go anywhere in the HF bands that data is allowed. There IS a
difference between machine operation and human to human operation and the
machines are not (at least yet) smart enough to "play nice(ly enough)."
They should, therefore, be limited to reasonably-sized sub-bands.
Carl's race for the Atlantic Division Directorship should be interesting
at the very least. Should he actually get elected, I'm sure the seasoned
veterans of the League will welcome him with open arms.
I am committed to working with whoever constitutes the BoD should I get
elected. No, I will not be a "yes man." Yes, I will prod them for more
progressive appoaches to many of the issues facing the League and ham radio
in general. I will do that based on input from the membership, my technical
expertise, my regulatory expertise, my proven track record of leadership and
consensus-building in IEEE standards activites and other venues, and my
dedication to a healthy, secure, and harmonious future for ham radio.
Dave K8MN
73,
Carl - wk3c
http://home.ptd.net/~wk3c