Leo wrote in message . ..
On 1 Oct 2003 07:53:24 -0700, (Brian) wrote:
Leo wrote in message . ..
Not really - read the message I replied to - the reply was just
following the thread. (you know, replying to the content and in this
case the criticism of *my* spelling in the message one up from this
one.....). It was a bit of a cheap shot, I admit - the result of
fighting fire with fire, I suppose.
I thought you called that "running out of steam." Now you're trying
to rationalize your lack of steam.
Not at all - just explaining the reasoning behind the comments. Read
the entire thread - the comments followed suit.
I sincerely hope your 'lack of steam' comment wasn't an attempt to
rekindle the flame, now, was it? 
As far as I'm concerned, the differences that Clint and I have had
have been amicably resolved - we now know exactly where each other is
coming from, and why - and peace reigns once again. We may not agree
on all points - but we do share common ground, as do the majority of
us in the group: see the thread "The Way To Stop BPL" for further
details.
Fair enough.
Thank you.
Beating each other up isn't going to resolve anything...there are
issues we all need to stand together on. Some (like the famous Code /
No Code question) simply have no right answer
I disagree.
As you most assuredly have the right to do.
BTW, is it the code/no code part, or the beating people up part, or
the standing together part of my statement that you disagree with?
The famous Code/No Code part.
- and others (like BPL)
threaten the hobby. Perhaps if we channel all of our energy where it
will do the most good for the hobby, we can effect change.
73, Leo
Perhaps the ARRL's Official Observer program will now look outward for
interference problems rather than confine itself to internal problems.
I'm a bit puzzled by this one - that has what to do with BPL, or other
things that threaten the hobby?
OO's are trained in documentation. Documentation of interference will
be required to file a complaint. OO's are confined to documenting
amateur's violations in the ARS, not interference to the ARS by
unlicensed operators.
Thus, I state that perhaps the ARRL will take an outward looking
stance with respect to this interference.