| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#122
September 9th 06, 06:41 PM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
|
|||
|
|||
You'll probably never have to use CW to save a life.
wrote:
wrote: wrote: But why is it that the judicial system relies upon people seeing that they have a conflict of interest and recuse themselves, but amateurs cannot? The judicial system does not rely primarily on people recusing themselves. In fact, that's pretty much a last resort. lying agin Jim that is unworthy In Carl's case, I think the ARRL BoD erred on the side of caution. I supported letting him run for the office in my division, and letting the membership decide. I still support that position, even though I'm not sure I'd vote for Carl (it would depend on who the other candidates were). bull **** it was retalation plain and simple the ARRL BoD has been lyig when they claim tha those that disagree can jion and work for chancge from within |
|
#123
September 9th 06, 11:52 PM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
|
|||
|
|||
|
You'll probably never have to use CW to save a life.
wrote: wrote: Yep, just the opposite of selling tobacco to kids. It's illegal to sell it to them, but it's not illegal for them to try to buy it from you. You might want to check that. In many states it is illegal for a minor to buy, possess or use tobacco products. If a store sells tobacco to a minor, the minor is in possession, and both store and minor can be prosecuted. You say "in many states;" you do not say in ALL states. |
|
#124
September 10th 06, 12:16 AM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
|
|||
|
|||
|
You'll probably never have to use CW to save a life.
wrote: On 8 Sep 2006 16:28:10 -0700, wrote: wrote: Dave Heil wrote: The matter is moot since Carl's mouth would have precluded his being elected had he qualified for candidacy. Possibly. But as an ARRL member in the Atlantic Division, I thought he should have the chance to run. The fact that I disagree with him on some issues might have been overshadowed by broad agreement on other issues. Maybe I would have voted for him, maybe not. Maybe he could have won, maybe not, but at least I wanted the choice. Carl's excellent work on interference-from-BPL speaks for itself. Director terms are not for life. The board, committees and officers change over time. There will be other elections. 73 de Jim, N2EY Jim, this is one of the fairest replies that I've seen from you in a long time. indeed But why is it that the judicial system relies upon people seeing that they have a conflict of interest and recuse themselves, but amateurs cannot? Is amateur radio more important than the judicial system that you have to refuse top notch talent so that a conflict can never occur? so that a person cannot show that they have integrity and recuse themselves? it does sgive creddence to notion that ARRL and is Morsemen foreveris seen by them ARRL as more critcal the role of the Supremes in the Us Govt or at least a person could be forgiven for concluding ithat If Heil is so sure that Carl's mouth would preclude him from winning an election, why not give him the opportunity to be SOUNDLY defeated? One could also be forgiven for concluding that that whole things was just pay back Likely. |
|
#125
September 10th 06, 12:21 AM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
|
|||
|
|||
|
You'll probably never have to use CW to save a life.
Dave Heil wrote: wrote: Dave Heil wrote: wrote: Dave Heil wrote: Read up on it. You read up on it. Then you had no need to ask the question. Quit wasting my time. You choose to waste your own time. I chose not to. Yet here you are. |
|
#126
September 10th 06, 12:39 AM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
|
|||
|
|||
|
You'll probably never have to use CW to save a life.
wrote:
wrote: On 8 Sep 2006 16:28:10 -0700, wrote: wrote: Dave Heil wrote: The matter is moot since Carl's mouth would have precluded his being elected had he qualified for candidacy. Possibly. But as an ARRL member in the Atlantic Division, I thought he should have the chance to run. The fact that I disagree with him on some issues might have been overshadowed by broad agreement on other issues. Maybe I would have voted for him, maybe not. Maybe he could have won, maybe not, but at least I wanted the choice. Carl's excellent work on interference-from-BPL speaks for itself. Director terms are not for life. The board, committees and officers change over time. There will be other elections. 73 de Jim, N2EY Jim, this is one of the fairest replies that I've seen from you in a long time. indeed But why is it that the judicial system relies upon people seeing that they have a conflict of interest and recuse themselves, but amateurs cannot? Is amateur radio more important than the judicial system that you have to refuse top notch talent so that a conflict can never occur? so that a person cannot show that they have integrity and recuse themselves? it does sgive creddence to notion that ARRL and is Morsemen foreveris seen by them ARRL as more critcal the role of the Supremes in the Us Govt or at least a person could be forgiven for concluding ithat If Heil is so sure that Carl's mouth would preclude him from winning an election, why not give him the opportunity to be SOUNDLY defeated? It isn't my option to give him the opportunity. He was disqualified from running under long-standing election rules. Carl would need to meet the qualifications for standing for an ARRL Board election before he could be soundly defeated. One could also be forgiven for concluding that that whole things was just pay back Likely. Another sinister conspiracy, huh? Dave K8MN |
|
#127
September 10th 06, 12:40 AM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
|
|||
|
|||
|
You'll probably never have to use CW to save a life.
|
|
#128
September 10th 06, 01:22 AM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
|
|||
|
|||
|
You'll probably never have to use CW to save a life.
wrote: wrote: wrote: Dave Heil wrote: The ARRL's rules regarding candidacy for elected ARRL positions existed decades before Carl's run. They go all the way back to the very beginning of the League. They're really very basic conflict-of-interest rules. Someone whose employment is tied to parts of the radio industry that conflict with amateur radio, or could conflict with amateur radio, are not allowed to hold policy-making ARRL positions, such as Director and Vice-Director. For example, someone working on a BPL system could not be a vice director. It's not about whether someone is a "professional" or not, but whether the person's "pecuniary interest" could present a conflict. The problem is in the interpretation of those rules. The committee which decides such things decided there could be a conflict-of-interest. The BoD agreed with the committee. Some of us here in the Atlantic Division (where he lives), and elsewhere, thought that Carl should be allowed to run. We did not see the alleged conflict-of-interest. We expressed that opinion to the commitee, the board, the officers, etc. but they did not change their minds. btw, director and vice director are division positions, not section positions. The matter is moot since Carl's mouth would have precluded his being elected had he qualified for candidacy. Possibly. But as an ARRL member in the Atlantic Division, I thought he should have the chance to run. The fact that I disagree with him on some issues might have been overshadowed by broad agreement on other issues. Maybe I would have voted for him, maybe not. Maybe he could have won, maybe not, but at least I wanted the choice. Carl's excellent work on interference-from-BPL speaks for itself. Director terms are not for life. The board, committees and officers change over time. There will be other elections. But why is it that the judicial system relies upon people seeing that they have a conflict of interest and recuse themselves, but amateurs cannot? The judicial system does not rely primarily on people recusing themselves. In fact, that's pretty much a last resort. Yet, if the judge doesn't recuse him/herself where a conflict of interest occurs, or a potential conflict of interest exists, then what do you call it? Take jury selection. Here in Pennsylvania, there are lots of occupations and associations that will get someone eliminated from different types of cases. For example, in a personal-injury case, being in the insurance industry, the medical industry, or law enforcement will usually disqualify you. In fact, if a close family member or a good friend is in those industries, it greatly reduces your chances of being on that jury. That's all based on the possibility of a potential conflict of interest. On top of that, both sides have the right to object to the selection of a particular person. They can object for a specified reason (such as not wanting a juryperson whose relative worked in the insurance industry, because that person might not want to hand out big awards in a personal injury case). They can also object for no specified reason at all. The number of objections is limited, but usually enough to keep people with possible conflicts off the jury. OTOH, a potential jury member cannot recuse themselves. They can give the jury commission reasons to not choose them, but ultimately it is not their decision. In a jury case, it is ultimately the jury who decide the outcome, just as in the ARRL BoD, it is the directors and vice directors who decide policy. Neither depends on self-disqualification (recusing) to prevent conflict of interest. The jury pool contains a large number of potential jurors who remain in the pool, eligible for duty on numerous other trials. People who are eliminated from the ballot never get that chance. Similar rules apply to judges. Usually a judge will recuse himself or herself if there is an apparent conflict of interest, because to not do so makes the judge look incompetent. Do the ARRL BoD not concern themselves with looking incopetent? The judges all know that the various sides in a case will make a lot of noise about such a conflict, too, and have legal recourse. The methods of deciding which judge gets which case are another safeguard against conflicts of interest. On top of all this, a judge doesn't usually have any other job, while directors and vice directors often do. Or they're retired. The point of all this is that the judicial system does not depend primarily on self-disqualification to prevent conflicts of interest. Nor should it! Then you advocate that the judicial system take away the ability of a judge to recuse him or herself? Hardly. Its an important safeguard that is absolutely needed. Is amateur radio more important than the judicial system that you have to refuse top notch talent so that a conflict can never occur? so that a person cannot show that they have integrity and recuse themselves? Carl may be top-notch in his specific technical fields. But whether he is top-notch in dealing with the issues of the ARRL BoD is another matter, and open to opinion. We'll never know. Some make the mistake of assuming that a person who is technically knowledgeable in one area is automatically knowledgeable in all related areas. Some make the mistake of assuming that a person who has no technical knowledge is automatically knowledgeable in all technical areas because they hold an Extra license. Some make the mistake of assuming that a person who is technically knowledgeable in one area is automatically a good manager, negotiator, teacher, or spokesperson. Some make the mistake of assuming that a person whi is technically knowledgeable in one area is automatically devoid of knowledge in management, negotiations, teaching, or public information. None of that is a given - in fact, it's an extreme rarity. We've seen examples of how self-proclaimed "PROFESSIONALS" can behave very poorly on newsgroups... Yes. I understand that you are in the industry. In Carl's case, I think the ARRL BoD erred on the side of caution. I think they erred on the side of self-preservation. I supported letting him run for the office in my division, and letting the membership decide. I still support that position, even though I'm not sure I'd vote for Carl (it would depend on who the other candidates were). You'll never know. btw, the ARRL BoD is a widely varied group, not just a bunch of retired guys. Working guys not from industry (and probably lacking in technical knowledge), and retired guys from industry (whose retirement plans and 401ks couldn't possibly present a conflict of interest). Their opinions are all over the map - that's why their proposals are obviously compromises between the various groups. Regardless of all of the maps and all of the compromises, when their opinions are distilled into policy, they always advocate the Morse Code Exam. |
|
#129
September 10th 06, 01:26 AM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
|
|||
|
|||
|
You'll probably never have to use CW to save a life.
Dave Heil wrote: wrote: so that a person cannot show that they have integrity and recuse themselves? Show some integrity and recuse yourself. Dave K8MN Show some integrity and recuse yourself from out of band Frenchmen on 6 meters. |
|
#130
September 10th 06, 01:35 AM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
|
|||
|
|||
|
You'll probably never have to use CW to save a life.
Dave Heil wrote: wrote: wrote: On 8 Sep 2006 16:28:10 -0700, wrote: wrote: Dave Heil wrote: The matter is moot since Carl's mouth would have precluded his being elected had he qualified for candidacy. Possibly. But as an ARRL member in the Atlantic Division, I thought he should have the chance to run. The fact that I disagree with him on some issues might have been overshadowed by broad agreement on other issues. Maybe I would have voted for him, maybe not. Maybe he could have won, maybe not, but at least I wanted the choice. Carl's excellent work on interference-from-BPL speaks for itself. Director terms are not for life. The board, committees and officers change over time. There will be other elections. 73 de Jim, N2EY Jim, this is one of the fairest replies that I've seen from you in a long time. indeed But why is it that the judicial system relies upon people seeing that they have a conflict of interest and recuse themselves, but amateurs cannot? Is amateur radio more important than the judicial system that you have to refuse top notch talent so that a conflict can never occur? so that a person cannot show that they have integrity and recuse themselves? it does sgive creddence to notion that ARRL and is Morsemen foreveris seen by them ARRL as more critcal the role of the Supremes in the Us Govt or at least a person could be forgiven for concluding ithat If Heil is so sure that Carl's mouth would preclude him from winning an election, why not give him the opportunity to be SOUNDLY defeated? It isn't my option to give him the opportunity. He was disqualified from running under long-standing election rules. Carl would need to meet the qualifications for standing for an ARRL Board election before he could be soundly defeated. One could also be forgiven for concluding that that whole things was just pay back Likely. Another sinister conspiracy, huh? Dave K8MN I've seen the way a bunch of Extras act on RRAP. Why would a bunch of other Extras act any differently? |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| You'll probably never have to use CW to save a life. | Antenna | |||
| If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die? | General | |||
| If you had to use CW to save someone's life, would that person die? | Shortwave | |||
| If you had to die to save someone's life, would that person send CW? | Antenna | |||
| Good morning or good evening depending upon your location. I want to ask you the most important question of your life. Your joy or sorrow for all eternity depends upon your answer. The question is: Are you saved? It is not a question of how good | Antenna | |||
Linear Mode
