Bob Brock wrote in message . ..
On 04 Sep 2003 01:29:46 GMT, (WA8ULX) wrote:
That's a reasonable approximation ... and growing by leaps and bounds
daily with the Petition and associated publicity.
Carl - wk3c
[expeletive deleted]
Prove it.
See, I told you guys that this would happen if any number was claimed.
No number has been claimed, Bob.
Now, someone wants proof and the only way to proove it is to publish a
list of members which NCI won't do.
Then that one person doesn't get his proof.
It was like watching two trains
going opposite directions on the same track, you guys knew it was
going to happen, yet you did everything possible to make it happen.
What ARE you talking about? Ever hear of railroad signal systems?
The question then becomes, why? One possibility is that you thought
that a number could be published and no one would say, "Proove it."
We all know better than that though. Another possiblity was that it's
what you wanted to happen, because when it did happen you could all
jump on the "the number is BS bandwagon". The advantage of the "BS
bandwagon" is that it moves you away from just how untenable the code
requriement position really is and it makes you feel somehow stronger.
Nope. None of the above.
Here's the background:
NCI has been around since about 1996. Some of its staff and supporters
have claimed that the procodetest position is a minority position -
which makes them the majority position. But no proof of same has ever
been offered. There have also been claims that NCI "represents" ham
radio, and that ARRL does not, etc.
Check out this post from the executive director:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...&output=gplain
Here's the part I like best:
(Carl, WK3C, writes in an earlier post):
And
are you going to grouse about "restructuring" for the next 50 years?
(I replied):
Not me. But isn't it the right of all Americans to complain about their
government and petition for changes?
(Carl answers):
Yes ... of course ...
Or is that right reserved only for those who agree with NCI's opinions?
Of course not, but at *some* point, folks in the minority should take
"No." for an answer and get on with life ...
(end of quotes)
Gotta love that addytood..."at *some* point, folks in the minority
should take "No." for an answer and get on with life ..."
Did NCI "take no for an answer and get on with life" when they turned
out to be in the minority of those who commented to FCC on the 2000
restructuring?
Suppose the FCC puts up an NPRM proposing to dump Element 1. And
suppose the majority of comments received on the issue say "Keep it".
Will NCI "take no for an answer and get on with life"?
Naturally some of us asked how big NCI is, and how fast it was
growing, and all we ever got was evasive answers such as "lots and
lots", "growing by leaps and bounds", etc.
The only indication those of us on the outside have of NCI's size is
the member numbers we've seen. The highest numbers I've seen are below
5000, which means there cannot be more than 5000 members, right?
But there's more! NCI started out with member number #1001, not #0001,
so the real size cannot be more than 4000. Why did they start with
#1001 instead of #0001? Please don't tell me their computers could not
handle low numbers...
On top of that, membership costs nothing and all members are
considered "active" unless they specifically request being removed
from membership. Which has happened in a few cases that I know of
personally. So anyone who joined is carried on NCI's books as a
member, no matter what their interest and activity today. FISTS and
most other groups like ARRL will drop you from their rolls if you
don't send in your renewal, but not NCI.
Despite repeated requests over at least 6 years, NCI refuses to give
an actual number of members. Why? All we've asked for is a statement
like "As of September 1, 2003, there were XXXX active members of NCI.
Of those, YYYY are licensed US hams". We did not ask for a list of
names or calls.
All of this makes an NCI-outsider a bit skeptical. If the number of
members isn't that big a deal, why all the secrecy about it all these
years?
I'm sure that there are other reasons that you guys were so adamant
about wanting a number that you knew you would disagree with.
You're taking Bruce's demand for proof and applying it generally. Why?
I'd
like to hear them. What are they?
See above.
73 de Jim, N2EY