Mike Coslo wrote:
an_old_friend wrote:
I had always thought it was expressly forbidden to accept any
compensation for our activiites as Hams, the correctness of that rule
being a another matter


Under certain circumstances it is.

We're talking about being reimbursed for reasonable expenses here. The
personal cost of say a week on location in a disaster area is
significant. Air travel, hotel and food adds up pretty quickly. And as
Ham radio becomes more integrated into the disaster response system, we
will be compensated like the rest of the responders.

Perhaps that will be one of those certain circumstances?

It should be but this amounts to turning the rules upside down over
night

The rules should be rewritten so as to deal with such things but the
rules currently forbid it

wicking at the rules at some point, is likely the reason why some hams
(like K1MAN) have developed views and actions that so many Ham
disaprove of

I fully support changing the rules, writing new ones to deal with such
things. I would even support this if it came with words like" we are
aware this may be considered a violation of the rules, but the ARRL
thinks in this case we must act, and then we will seek to work with the
FCC to write rules that permit reasonable compsation for thier
expenses" or word to that effect

as it is is looks like graft and corupportion

- Mike KB3EIA -

"an_old_friend" wrote in message
oups.com...

Mike Coslo wrote:
an_old_friend wrote:
I had always thought it was expressly forbidden to accept any
compensation for our activiites as Hams, the correctness of that rule
being a another matter


Under certain circumstances it is.

We're talking about being reimbursed for reasonable expenses here. The
personal cost of say a week on location in a disaster area is
significant. Air travel, hotel and food adds up pretty quickly. And as
Ham radio becomes more integrated into the disaster response system, we
will be compensated like the rest of the responders.

Perhaps that will be one of those certain circumstances?

It should be but this amounts to turning the rules upside down over
night

The rules should be rewritten so as to deal with such things but the
rules currently forbid it

wicking at the rules at some point, is likely the reason why some hams
(like K1MAN) have developed views and actions that so many Ham
disaprove of

I fully support changing the rules, writing new ones to deal with such
things. I would even support this if it came with words like" we are
aware this may be considered a violation of the rules, but the ARRL
thinks in this case we must act, and then we will seek to work with the
FCC to write rules that permit reasonable compsation for thier
expenses" or word to that effect

as it is is looks like graft and corupportion

It only looks like that to people who look at the worst possible
interpretation rather than the best. Most of us DON'T look at it that way.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee Flint wrote:
"an_old_friend" wrote in message
oups.com...

Mike Coslo wrote:
an_old_friend wrote:
I had always thought it was expressly forbidden to accept any
compensation for our activiites as Hams, the correctness of that rule
being a another matter


Under certain circumstances it is.

We're talking about being reimbursed for reasonable expenses here. The
personal cost of say a week on location in a disaster area is
significant. Air travel, hotel and food adds up pretty quickly. And as
Ham radio becomes more integrated into the disaster response system, we
will be compensated like the rest of the responders.

Perhaps that will be one of those certain circumstances?

It should be but this amounts to turning the rules upside down over
night

The rules should be rewritten so as to deal with such things but the
rules currently forbid it

wicking at the rules at some point, is likely the reason why some hams
(like K1MAN) have developed views and actions that so many Ham
disaprove of

I fully support changing the rules, writing new ones to deal with such
things. I would even support this if it came with words like" we are
aware this may be considered a violation of the rules, but the ARRL
thinks in this case we must act, and then we will seek to work with the
FCC to write rules that permit reasonable compsation for thier
expenses" or word to that effect

as it is is looks like graft and corupportion

It only looks like that to people who look at the worst possible
interpretation rather than the best. Most of us DON'T look at it that way.

Those notes are from the ARRL who have boasted they take a more liberal
view than the FCC

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"an_old_friend" wrote in message
ups.com...

Dee Flint wrote:
"an_old_friend" wrote in message
oups.com...

Mike Coslo wrote:
an_old_friend wrote:
I had always thought it was expressly forbidden to accept any
compensation for our activiites as Hams, the correctness of that
rule
being a another matter


Under certain circumstances it is.

We're talking about being reimbursed for reasonable expenses here. The
personal cost of say a week on location in a disaster area is
significant. Air travel, hotel and food adds up pretty quickly. And as
Ham radio becomes more integrated into the disaster response system,
we
will be compensated like the rest of the responders.

Perhaps that will be one of those certain circumstances?

It should be but this amounts to turning the rules upside down over
night

The rules should be rewritten so as to deal with such things but the
rules currently forbid it

wicking at the rules at some point, is likely the reason why some hams
(like K1MAN) have developed views and actions that so many Ham
disaprove of

I fully support changing the rules, writing new ones to deal with such
things. I would even support this if it came with words like" we are
aware this may be considered a violation of the rules, but the ARRL
thinks in this case we must act, and then we will seek to work with the
FCC to write rules that permit reasonable compsation for thier
expenses" or word to that effect

as it is is looks like graft and corupportion

It only looks like that to people who look at the worst possible
interpretation rather than the best. Most of us DON'T look at it that
way.

Those notes are from the ARRL who have boasted they take a more liberal
view than the FCC

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


It seems like a simple statement rather than a boast.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee Flint wrote:
"an_old_friend" wrote in message
ups.com...
cut

It only looks like that to people who look at the worst possible
interpretation rather than the best. Most of us DON'T look at it that
way.

Those notes are from the ARRL who have boasted they take a more liberal
view than the FCC

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


It seems like a simple statement rather than a boast.

you are of course entitled to your opinion. By what right to seek to
deny MINE?

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"an old friend" wrote in message
oups.com...

Dee Flint wrote:
"an_old_friend" wrote in message
ups.com...
cut

It only looks like that to people who look at the worst possible
interpretation rather than the best. Most of us DON'T look at it that
way.

Those notes are from the ARRL who have boasted they take a more liberal
view than the FCC

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


It seems like a simple statement rather than a boast.

you are of course entitled to your opinion. By what right to seek to
deny MINE?

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


I have not denied yours. Simply made my point to counterbalance yours.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

AOF:

Did I understand Dee's question correctly? Isn't what she asked, and I
paraphrase here, "Where are your rose colored glasses?"

John

On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 17:02:11 -0700, an_old_friend wrote:


Mike Coslo wrote:
an_old_friend wrote:
I had always thought it was expressly forbidden to accept any
compensation for our activiites as Hams, the correctness of that rule
being a another matter


Under certain circumstances it is.

We're talking about being reimbursed for reasonable expenses here. The
personal cost of say a week on location in a disaster area is
significant. Air travel, hotel and food adds up pretty quickly. And as
Ham radio becomes more integrated into the disaster response system, we
will be compensated like the rest of the responders.

Perhaps that will be one of those certain circumstances?

It should be but this amounts to turning the rules upside down over
night

The rules should be rewritten so as to deal with such things but the
rules currently forbid it

wicking at the rules at some point, is likely the reason why some hams
(like K1MAN) have developed views and actions that so many Ham
disaprove of

I fully support changing the rules, writing new ones to deal with such
things. I would even support this if it came with words like" we are
aware this may be considered a violation of the rules, but the ARRL
thinks in this case we must act, and then we will seek to work with the
FCC to write rules that permit reasonable compsation for thier
expenses" or word to that effect

as it is is looks like graft and corupportion

- Mike KB3EIA -

John Smith wrote:
AOF:

Did I understand Dee's question correctly? Isn't what she asked, and I
paraphrase here, "Where are your rose colored glasses?"

John


IMO No what she said was "trust the ARRL they know what they are doing"
that takes more than Rose colored glasses, more like CGI imaging glasses

"an_old_friend" wrote in message
oups.com...

John Smith wrote:
AOF:

Did I understand Dee's question correctly? Isn't what she asked, and I
paraphrase here, "Where are your rose colored glasses?"

John


IMO No what she said was "trust the ARRL they know what they are doing"
that takes more than Rose colored glasses, more like CGI imaging glasses


Not at all. I read the ARRL statement and the FCC rules. I happen to agree
that there is enough flexibility to allow meeting the travel expenses, food
expenses for those who are going down. There is no intent to "make a buck".

My point was that there is no reason to automatically assume that there is
an intent to do wrong.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee Flint wrote:
"an_old_friend" wrote in message
oups.com...

John Smith wrote:
AOF:

Did I understand Dee's question correctly? Isn't what she asked, and I
paraphrase here, "Where are your rose colored glasses?"

John


IMO No what she said was "trust the ARRL they know what they are doing"
that takes more than Rose colored glasses, more like CGI imaging glasses


Not at all. I read the ARRL statement and the FCC rules. I happen to agree
that there is enough flexibility to allow meeting the travel expenses, food
expenses for those who are going down. There is no intent to "make a buck".

My point was that there is no reason to automatically assume that there is
an intent to do wrong.

and I at least have never said there was intent. but wrong can be done
without intent but still the ARRL is flip floping on LONG held
postition without much explaination

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE