Thread
:
With CW gone, can the CW allocations be far behind?
View Single Post
#
9
July 25th 03, 07:03 PM
Len Over 21
Posts: n/a
In article ,
(Brian) writes:
Hmmmm. Are you saying that the "Operate CW" numbers are inflated?
No, I'm saying the survey measures the respondents opinions of their own
levels of activity. What that means in objective terms is something on
which you're free to speculate, although I can't imagine what useful
result would obtain from such speculations.
Jon
Jon, you can't, huh? At a time when the ARRL wanted to save CW
testing, I could imagine the use of upping the numbers. Just my
opinion.
ARRL represents LESS than a quarter of all licensed US radio
amateurs. By their own demographics, ARRL membership is
already slanted towards morsemanship.
For survival as an organization, ARRL must represent its member-
ship and thus there is a positive feedback to sustaining
morsemanship.
While that isn't "proof" quid pro quo, the inference is readily
apparant to anyone the least familiar with amateur radio.
ARRL spin is, of course, that they "represent all amateurs" but in
fact all they "represent" is a minority of all licensed amateurs.
LHA
Reply With Quote
