RadioBanter
Page 15 of 19 « First 5891011121314 15 16171819
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

RadioBanter (https://www.radiobanter.com/)
-   Policy (https://www.radiobanter.com/policy/)
-   -   You'll probably never have to use CW to save a life. (https://www.radiobanter.com/policy/102577-youll-probably-never-have-use-cw-save-life.html)

[email protected] September 11th 06 08:37 PM
You'll probably never have to use CW to save a life.
 
From: on Sun, Sep 10 2006 4:54 pm

Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:


I'm sure that a highly competent guy like Carl Stevenson would have no
problem running that by what he calls, "

What he calls?

Heil was so steamed at the heretical statements of others that
he forget to edit his own postings after doing a search for
all of Stevenson's statements...selected statements by Heil
for the purposes of humiliation of a newsgroup "enemy." :-)

Carl would be aided in his efforts by the warmth and comraderie he has
genererated with statements like:

"The ARRL is like a corrupt dictatorship ... out of control and yet
with all the power of control (and money from its publishing empire)
... the only viable way to save ham radio is to overthrow the ARRL
and kick them out as the "representative" of ham radio to the FCC ...
given a chance, they'll do the wrong thing practically every time, it
seems."

Yet Carl is a member of the ARRL, and now wants to participate in the
decision making processes rather than remain among the down trodden.

Not allowed to think independently. The (present) ARRL
is without fault and KNOWS what is best for all amateurs.


"Almost anything would be better ... they're WORSE THAN NOTHING because
they do the wrong, destructive thing more often than not."

With respect to code testing I am in agreement with what Carl posted
almost a decade ago.

I agree. However, neither Heil nor the upper reaches of
ARRL can be told what to do. They KNOW what is best.


"Actually I am, but I have no aspirations to become the next Dave Sumner
...that would be a big step backward for me career-wise."

Meanwhile, you work on becoming the next Robesin. Congrats on your
giant step backward.

Morsemanship is apparently a catalyst, a trigger for Character
Assassination. That's readily apparent in Google archives.


"The BOD climbed into bed with a bunch of long-time frequency
coordination egomaniacs and to hell with everyone else."

Did they?

You won't get any answer on that, Brian. Heil is afraid you
will mention "6 meters" and "Frenchmen" again. :-)


"Get screwed, Herman .. the ARRL is NOT "the savior" ... they're Nero
fiddling merrily while Rome burns all around them."

For what purpose is Jim constantly posting amateur numbers?

Jimmy NEEDS to have the image of an Authority Figure here.
"Numbers" is an easy task to crib from other sources and
then pretend His are "authentic" (as if he did the search
and sort operations).


"...I have so little faith in the ARRL's ability to
lead ham radio into the next century that I beleive almost anyone could
do a better job".

He may be on to something.

You betcha.


"I don't see the ARRL as being 'effective' AT ALL ... I see it as
being/having been the single largest impediment to the
modernization, growth, and future security of the Amateur Radio Service."

There is a reason that the ARRL membership numbers are so abysmal even
though they are the only national amateur radio organization of any
consequence.

Mama Dee rationalizes that 3/4 of all US amateur radio
licensees are not "joiners." :-)

She overlooks the demographic fact that the core membership
and hierarchy of ARRL are devout morsemen.


Those are just a few of Carl's gems. There are many, many more.

Take your time. At the speed of ARRL, there's no need to hurry.

:-)

Dave Heil September 11th 06 09:22 PM
You'll probably never have to use CW to save a life.
 
wrote:
From: on Sun, Sep 10 2006 4:54 pm


Dave Heil wrote:

wrote:

Dave Heil wrote:


Carl would be aided in his efforts by the warmth and comraderie he has
genererated with statements like:

"The ARRL is like a corrupt dictatorship ... out of control and yet
with all the power of control (and money from its publishing empire)
... the only viable way to save ham radio is to overthrow the ARRL
and kick them out as the "representative" of ham radio to the FCC ...
given a chance, they'll do the wrong thing practically every time, it
seems."

Yet Carl is a member of the ARRL, and now wants to participate in the
decision making processes rather than remain among the down trodden.


Not allowed to think independently.

No one stopped Carl from thinking independently. His own independently
thought words would have been enough to ensure his defeat.

The (present) ARRL
is without fault and KNOWS what is best for all amateurs.

I don't believe I've seen anyone but you making such a statement. Is
that your belief?

"Almost anything would be better ... they're WORSE THAN NOTHING because
they do the wrong, destructive thing more often than not."

With respect to code testing I am in agreement with what Carl posted
almost a decade ago.

I agree.

Bully for both of you.

As I recall, you aren't an ARRL member and Brian allowed his membership
to lapse.

However, neither Heil nor the upper reaches of
ARRL can be told what to do. They KNOW what is best.

You know, Leonard, it is a fact that I'd put more faith in the ARRL
Board of Directors than I would place in your opinions of what is best
for amateur radio. That's a fact.

"Actually I am, but I have no aspirations to become the next Dave Sumner
...that would be a big step backward for me career-wise."

Meanwhile, you work on becoming the next Robesin. Congrats on your
giant step backward.


Morsemanship is apparently a catalyst, a trigger for Character
Assassination. That's readily apparent in Google archives.

For an assassination of your character, you'd have to act in a different
manner from what someone writes about you. You can feel safe from an
assassination attempt on your character.


"The BOD climbed into bed with a bunch of long-time frequency
coordination egomaniacs and to hell with everyone else."

Did they?


You won't get any answer on that, Brian. Heil is afraid you
will mention "6 meters" and "Frenchmen" again. :-)

He can mention it until he's blue in the face. The fact is, I'm not
responsible for how others operate their stations. I'm not responsible
for looking them up in a database, for knowing where they are permitted
to operate or for ascertaining that they are the fellow to whom a
license has been issued. I'm responsible for operating *my* station in
accordance with the regulations governing its use. I do so.


"Get screwed, Herman .. the ARRL is NOT "the savior" ... they're Nero
fiddling merrily while Rome burns all around them."

For what purpose is Jim constantly posting amateur numbers?


Jimmy NEEDS to have the image of an Authority Figure here.
"Numbers" is an easy task to crib from other sources and
then pretend His are "authentic" (as if he did the search
and sort operations).

So when you were reporting data from the FCC, you did it because you
felt the need to be an authority figure? After all, you cribbed the
material from another source.



"...I have so little faith in the ARRL's ability to
lead ham radio into the next century that I beleive almost anyone could
do a better job".

He may be on to something.


You betcha.

Wow! If you and Brian had been ARRL members and you lived in the
Atlantic Division and if Carl wasn't disqualified by virtue of his
employment and if Carl hadn't written the things he'd written, you might
have changed the history of amateur radio in this country.

If we had some meat, we could make sandwiches...if we had some bread.

"I don't see the ARRL as being 'effective' AT ALL ... I see it as
being/having been the single largest impediment to the
modernization, growth, and future security of the Amateur Radio Service."

There is a reason that the ARRL membership numbers are so abysmal even
though they are the only national amateur radio organization of any
consequence.


Mama Dee rationalizes that 3/4 of all US amateur radio
licensees are not "joiners." :-)

Who is Mama Dee?

She overlooks the demographic fact that the core membership
and hierarchy of ARRL are devout morsemen.

Devout morsemen? Do you mean that they've passed morse exams?

Dave K8MN

[email protected] September 12th 06 01:13 AM
You'll probably never have to use CW to save a life.
 
wrote:
 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.

For all the verbiage posted, I don't see anyone else here saying they
let the ARRL BoD and officers know of their support for Carl's
candidacy.

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.

He sure did say some wild things here in years gone by. Perhaps they
would have come back to haunt him - or perhaps the things he's done
since then would be seen as more important.

But in 2001 he upgraded to Extra, got a 2x1 vanity call, set up a
station, got on HF and worked some DX.

And about then he mellowed quite a bit. Became much less argumentative
and much more agreeable and consensus-finding, without changing his
basic positions on the issues.

He also hasn't posted here much if at all since then.

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?

Unethical is what I'd call it.

But the point is that the judicial system has methods besides
self-disqualification to prevent conflict of interest. It does not rely
solely or primarily on judges or jurors disqualifying themselves.

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.

Of course - but they are called upon only occasionally, for a specific
case. ARRL directors serve a term during which they decide many policy
issues.

People who are eliminated from the ballot never get that chance.

"Never" is a long time. There will be another election.

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?

Perhaps they thought they would be considered incompetent if they did
not enforce the bylaws.

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.

I suppose some of them are. Carl isn't, obviously.

Maybe when I retire, I might run for director or vice-director of the
Atlantic Division. Say, there's a ticket - Carl in one of those jobs
and me in the other.

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?

No.

Hardly. Its an important safeguard that is absolutely needed.

It's only one safeguard. There are many more.

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.

"Never" is a long time. There will be more elections.

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.

Both are mistakes. The first is more common.

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.

I don't know anyone who does the latter. Lots of people do the former.

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.

I don't think I've ever claimed to be a "PROFESSIONAL". I may be a
professional, but I don't see the need to shout it at people.

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.

How? Carl is only one person. How could one director destroy the BoD?

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.

"Never" is a long time. There will be more elections.

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).

Which industry?

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.

Incorrect!

The recent ARRL proposal to the FCC proposed eliminating the 5 wpm code
for General licenses. It would only be retained for Extra under the
ARRL proposal.

IOW, they advocated eliminating the Morse Code exam for access to all
amateur HF/MF frequencies except a few segments on 80, 40, 20 and 15
meters.

And this wasn't the first time. Back in 1990, ARRL advocated for a
no-code-test amateur license for VHF/UHF.

"they always advocate the Morse Code Exam" is simply not true.

[email protected] September 12th 06 01:30 AM
You'll probably never have to use CW to save a life.
 
wrote:

For what purpose is Jim constantly posting amateur numbers?

If you mean me, here's why:

First off, I usually post them twice a month - hardly "constantly"

The reason is to keep a record of how many individuals have FCC-issued
amateur licenses. Unlike websites, those posts of mine with the numbers
will be available as long as Usenet is archived.

Whenever you see license numbers tallied, it's important to note which
licenses are counted. Do the totals include licenses that are expired
but in the grace period? Those on hamdata.com do, mine don't. Do the
totals include club, RACES, and other station-only licenses? Etc.

There is a reason that the ARRL membership numbers are so abysmal even
though they are the only national amateur radio organization of any
consequence.

"Abysmal"? How so?

And as for being "only national amateur radio organization of any
consequence" - what about RSGB? RAC? JARL?

For that matter, what about NCI, which claims to be international,
charges no dues and has never-expiring memberships - yet in a decade or
more hasn't reached a membership level of even 10,000?

The reasons ARRL isn't bigger a

1) Some hams are inactive - either temporarily or permanently.

2) ARRL membership isn't inexpensive.

3) Some hams disagree with some ARRL policies, and won't join until
those policies change. Sometimes the policies are those of decades ago.

4) Some hams just aren't "joiners".

[email protected] September 12th 06 01:42 AM
You'll probably never have to use CW to save a life.
 

Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
From: on Sun, Sep 10 2006 4:54 pm


Dave Heil wrote:

wrote:

Dave Heil wrote:


Carl would be aided in his efforts by the warmth and comraderie he has
genererated with statements like:

"The ARRL is like a corrupt dictatorship ... out of control and yet
with all the power of control (and money from its publishing empire)
... the only viable way to save ham radio is to overthrow the ARRL
and kick them out as the "representative" of ham radio to the FCC ...
given a chance, they'll do the wrong thing practically every time, it
seems."

Yet Carl is a member of the ARRL, and now wants to participate in the
decision making processes rather than remain among the down trodden.


Not allowed to think independently.

No one stopped Carl from thinking independently. His own independently
thought words would have been enough to ensure his defeat.

Wishful thinking. You'll never know the outcome of Carl's run for
office.

The (present) ARRL
is without fault and KNOWS what is best for all amateurs.

I don't believe I've seen anyone but you making such a statement. Is
that your belief?

It's far from what I believe. How about you?

"Almost anything would be better ... they're WORSE THAN NOTHING because
they do the wrong, destructive thing more often than not."

With respect to code testing I am in agreement with what Carl posted
almost a decade ago.

I agree.

Bully for both of you.

As I recall, you aren't an ARRL member and Brian allowed his membership
to lapse.

I keep renewing, hoping that another Carl will make a run for office.

However, neither Heil nor the upper reaches of
ARRL can be told what to do. They KNOW what is best.

You know, Leonard, it is a fact that I'd put more faith in the ARRL
Board of Directors than I would place in your opinions of what is best
for amateur radio. That's a fact.

Is Len running for office? Are you considering it?

"Actually I am, but I have no aspirations to become the next Dave Sumner
...that would be a big step backward for me career-wise."

Meanwhile, you work on becoming the next Robesin. Congrats on your
giant step backward.

Morsemanship is apparently a catalyst, a trigger for Character
Assassination. That's readily apparent in Google archives.

For an assassination of your character, you'd have to act in a different
manner from what someone writes about you. You can feel safe from an
assassination attempt on your character.

And so you endorse Robesin's activities again.

"The BOD climbed into bed with a bunch of long-time frequency
coordination egomaniacs and to hell with everyone else."

Did they?


You won't get any answer on that, Brian. Heil is afraid you
will mention "6 meters" and "Frenchmen" again. :-)

He can mention it until he's blue in the face.

I will, and then some. Thanks for your blessings.

The fact is, I'm not
responsible for how others operate their stations. I'm not responsible
for looking them up in a database, for knowing where they are permitted
to operate or for ascertaining that they are the fellow to whom a
license has been issued. I'm responsible for operating *my* station in
accordance with the regulations governing its use. I do so.

Bully for you.

"Get screwed, Herman .. the ARRL is NOT "the savior" ... they're Nero
fiddling merrily while Rome burns all around them."

For what purpose is Jim constantly posting amateur numbers?


Jimmy NEEDS to have the image of an Authority Figure here.
"Numbers" is an easy task to crib from other sources and
then pretend His are "authentic" (as if he did the search
and sort operations).

So when you were reporting data from the FCC, you did it because you
felt the need to be an authority figure? After all, you cribbed the
material from another source.

Jim's numbers are unsupervised. We're just supposed to believe him?

"...I have so little faith in the ARRL's ability to
lead ham radio into the next century that I beleive almost anyone could
do a better job".

He may be on to something.

You betcha.

Wow! If you and Brian had been ARRL members and you lived in the
Atlantic Division and if Carl wasn't disqualified by virtue of his
employment and if Carl hadn't written the things he'd written, you might
have changed the history of amateur radio in this country.

And if you run for office...

If we had some meat, we could make sandwiches...if we had some bread.

I'll be sure that your smugness is well publicized.

"I don't see the ARRL as being 'effective' AT ALL ... I see it as
being/having been the single largest impediment to the
modernization, growth, and future security of the Amateur Radio Service."

There is a reason that the ARRL membership numbers are so abysmal even
though they are the only national amateur radio organization of any
consequence.

Mama Dee rationalizes that 3/4 of all US amateur radio
licensees are not "joiners." :-)

Who is Mama Dee?

Take a WAG.

She overlooks the demographic fact that the core membership
and hierarchy of ARRL are devout morsemen.

Devout morsemen? Do you mean that they've passed morse exams?

Take a WAG.

[email protected] September 12th 06 01:55 AM
You'll probably never have to use CW to save a life.
 

wrote:
 wrote:

For what purpose is Jim constantly posting amateur numbers?

If you mean me,

No, I meant Jimmy Cricket. You know, he lives in an empty matchbox.

here's why:

First off, I usually post them twice a month - hardly "constantly"

A thread with 10,000 posts?

The reason is to keep a record of how many individuals have FCC-issued
amateur licenses.

For what purpose?

Unlike websites, those posts of mine with the numbers
will be available as long as Usenet is archived.

So the numbers on websites are unreliable somehow?

Whenever you see license numbers tallied, it's important to note which
licenses are counted. Do the totals include licenses that are expired
but in the grace period? Those on hamdata.com do, mine don't. Do the
totals include club, RACES, and other station-only licenses? Etc.

Do yours?

There is a reason that the ARRL membership numbers are so abysmal even
though they are the only national amateur radio organization of any
consequence.

"Abysmal"? How so?

And as for being "only national amateur radio organization of any
consequence" - what about RSGB? RAC? JARL?

and NCI, FISTS, TAPR, and Ten-Ten (k3lt's favorite). What about all of
them?

For that matter, what about NCI, which claims to be international,
charges no dues and has never-expiring memberships - yet in a decade or
more hasn't reached a membership level of even 10,000?

Indeed. I'm still a member.

When Bill Sohl gets around to asking for a donation, I'll be sending
it.

The reasons ARRL isn't bigger a

1) Some hams are inactive - either temporarily or permanently.

2) ARRL membership isn't inexpensive.

3) Some hams disagree with some ARRL policies, and won't join until
those policies change. Sometimes the policies are those of decades ago.

4) Some hams just aren't "joiners".

More would be joiners if there were something they could get behind.
With more joining, membership could become inexpensive. Past mistakes
need to be admitted as mistakes, and apologies issued to those who have
lost priveleges in the inventive licensing fiasco before those hams
expire.

....Though I'm sure that you see everything differently.

[email protected] September 12th 06 02:34 AM
You'll probably never have to use CW to save a life.
 

wrote:
 wrote:

But the point is that the judicial system has methods besides
self-disqualification to prevent conflict of interest. It does not rely
solely or primarily on judges or jurors disqualifying themselves.

No. The point is that ethical people behave ethically. You missed
that part.

Dave Heil September 13th 06 01:20 AM
You'll probably never have to use CW to save a life.
 
wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:

wrote:

From: on Sun, Sep 10 2006 4:54 pm



Dave Heil wrote:


wrote:


Dave Heil wrote:


Carl would be aided in his efforts by the warmth and comraderie he has
genererated with statements like:

"The ARRL is like a corrupt dictatorship ... out of control and yet
with all the power of control (and money from its publishing empire)
... the only viable way to save ham radio is to overthrow the ARRL
and kick them out as the "representative" of ham radio to the FCC ...
given a chance, they'll do the wrong thing practically every time, it
seems."

Yet Carl is a member of the ARRL, and now wants to participate in the
decision making processes rather than remain among the down trodden.


Not allowed to think independently.

No one stopped Carl from thinking independently. His own independently
thought words would have been enough to ensure his defeat.


Wishful thinking.

I think of it as "likely outcome".

You'll never know the outcome of Carl's run for
office.

Yep.


The (present) ARRL
is without fault and KNOWS what is best for all amateurs.

I don't believe I've seen anyone but you making such a statement. Is
that your belief?


It's far from what I believe. How about you?

No organization is perfect. If I believed that, you wouldn't have seen
my comment above.


"Almost anything would be better ... they're WORSE THAN NOTHING because
they do the wrong, destructive thing more often than not."

With respect to code testing I am in agreement with what Carl posted
almost a decade ago.

I agree.

Bully for both of you.

As I recall, you aren't an ARRL member and Brian allowed his membership
to lapse.


I keep renewing, hoping that another Carl will make a run for office.

To my knowledge, there isn't another Carl. If there's someone with a
job similar to Carl's he likely won't be eligible to run. If he acts
like Carl, he likely won't be able to win.


However, neither Heil nor the upper reaches of
ARRL can be told what to do. They KNOW what is best.

You know, Leonard, it is a fact that I'd put more faith in the ARRL
Board of Directors than I would place in your opinions of what is best
for amateur radio. That's a fact.


Is Len running for office?

Len isn't eligible to run in an ARRL election.

Are you considering it?

Not at this time.


"Actually I am, but I have no aspirations to become the next Dave Sumner
...that would be a big step backward for me career-wise."

Meanwhile, you work on becoming the next Robesin. Congrats on your
giant step backward.

Morsemanship is apparently a catalyst, a trigger for Character
Assassination. That's readily apparent in Google archives.

For an assassination of your character, you'd have to act in a different
manner from what someone writes about you. You can feel safe from an
assassination attempt on your character.


And so you endorse Robesin's activities again.

I've done nothing of the sort and there is no person here named Robesin.


"The BOD climbed into bed with a bunch of long-time frequency
coordination egomaniacs and to hell with everyone else."

Did they?


You won't get any answer on that, Brian. Heil is afraid you
will mention "6 meters" and "Frenchmen" again. :-)

He can mention it until he's blue in the face.


I will, and then some. Thanks for your blessings.

It was a non-issue when you first brought it up. It has been a
non-issue each time since.


The fact is, I'm not
responsible for how others operate their stations. I'm not responsible
for looking them up in a database, for knowing where they are permitted
to operate or for ascertaining that they are the fellow to whom a
license has been issued. I'm responsible for operating *my* station in
accordance with the regulations governing its use. I do so.


Bully for you.

Bully for everyone who is a ham.


"Get screwed, Herman .. the ARRL is NOT "the savior" ... they're Nero
fiddling merrily while Rome burns all around them."

For what purpose is Jim constantly posting amateur numbers?


Jimmy NEEDS to have the image of an Authority Figure here.
"Numbers" is an easy task to crib from other sources and
then pretend His are "authentic" (as if he did the search
and sort operations).

So when you were reporting data from the FCC, you did it because you
felt the need to be an authority figure? After all, you cribbed the
material from another source.


Jim's numbers are unsupervised. We're just supposed to believe him?

How are numbers supervised?


"...I have so little faith in the ARRL's ability to
lead ham radio into the next century that I beleive almost anyone could
do a better job".

He may be on to something.

You betcha.

Wow! If you and Brian had been ARRL members and you lived in the
Atlantic Division and if Carl wasn't disqualified by virtue of his
employment and if Carl hadn't written the things he'd written, you might
have changed the history of amateur radio in this country.


And if you run for office...

....I won't have a conflict of interest to preclude my eligibity to run,
assuming you're writing of the ARRL.


If we had some meat, we could make sandwiches...if we had some bread.


I'll be sure that your smugness is well publicized.

Please do so, especially if I'm running from the Roanoke Division and
you're still living in the Great Lakes Division. Enlist the support of
Mark Morgan and Len. I'll be a cinch.


"I don't see the ARRL as being 'effective' AT ALL ... I see it as
being/having been the single largest impediment to the
modernization, growth, and future security of the Amateur Radio Service."

There is a reason that the ARRL membership numbers are so abysmal even
though they are the only national amateur radio organization of any
consequence.

Mama Dee rationalizes that 3/4 of all US amateur radio
licensees are not "joiners." :-)

Who is Mama Dee?


Take a WAG.

Oh! Has Len decided to denigrate another person who disagrees with him?
Isn't that a thing he derides in others. I don't recall Dee Flint ever
acting that way toward Len.


She overlooks the demographic fact that the core membership
and hierarchy of ARRL are devout morsemen.

Devout morsemen? Do you mean that they've passed morse exams?


Take a WAG.

If I understand your inuendo, anyone who has passed a morse exam and
holds League membership, elected office or works as a League staffer is
a "devout morseman". It looks like another conspiracy theory being
formulated.

Dave K8MN

Dave Heil September 13th 06 01:31 AM
You'll probably never have to use CW to save a life.
 
wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:

wrote:

Dave Heil wrote:



[snip of Len's "blah, blah, blah"]


Censorship?



Summary of Len's comments:

Len is still suspicious of the ARRL. Len believes Carl should have been
allowed to run. Len believes that Carl would have brought change, even
if he would have been one of many ARRL Directors if elected.

Len is still not a radio amateur and not an ARRL member. Len is not a
participant in amateur radio and his views of what is best for amateur
radio and what is best for the ARRL are still irrelevant.

Dave K8MN


Perhaps Carl would have championed the reciprocol frequency rule.

"Reciprocal"


You
can't talk to people on frequencies where they're not allowed. You
can't be the other half of an illegal QSO.

Is that the one where one party is responsible for looking up the
frequency allocations for each foreign QSO, determining the other
operators license class and the like? Does it include checking the FCC
database to ensure that the other op in each domestic QSO has a right to
be where he is operating?

I'm sure that a highly competent guy like Carl Stevenson would have no
problem running that by what he calls, "


What he calls?


Carl would be aided in his efforts by the warmth and comraderie he has
genererated with statements like:

"The ARRL is like a corrupt dictatorship ... out of control and yet
with all the power of control (and money from its publishing empire)
... the only viable way to save ham radio is to overthrow the ARRL
and kick them out as the "representative" of ham radio to the FCC ...
given a chance, they'll do the wrong thing practically every time, it
seems."


Yet Carl is a member of the ARRL, and now wants to participate in the
decision making processes

The only things which stand in the way of his doing so are 1) becoming
eligible to run and 2) getting elected.

...rather than remain among the down trodden.

The downtrodden? The poor? The lame? The under-appreciated?


"Almost anything would be better ... they're WORSE THAN NOTHING because
they do the wrong, destructive thing more often than not."


With respect to code testing I am in agreement with what Carl posted
almost a decade ago.

I'm fully aware of that. That doesn't make it correct.


"Actually I am, but I have no aspirations to become the next Dave Sumner
...that would be a big step backward for me career-wise."


Meanwhile, you work on becoming the next Robesin. Congrats on your
giant step backward.

There's no truth in your statement.


"The BOD climbed into bed with a bunch of long-time frequency
coordination egomaniacs and to hell with everyone else."


Did they?

No, they did not.


"Get screwed, Herman .. the ARRL is NOT "the savior" ... they're Nero
fiddling merrily while Rome burns all around them."


For what purpose is Jim constantly posting amateur numbers?

What does your question have to do with the above?


"...I have so little faith in the ARRL's ability to
lead ham radio into the next century that I beleive almost anyone could
do a better job".


He may be on to something.

I don't think a guy who can't spell "believe" is ready to lead anyone
anywhere.


"I don't see the ARRL as being 'effective' AT ALL ... I see it as
being/having been the single largest impediment to the
modernization, growth, and future security of the Amateur Radio Service."


There is a reason that the ARRL membership numbers are so abysmal even
though they are the only national amateur radio organization of any
consequence.

Why, you've begun with a false premise. The League membership numbers
are hardly abysmal. What percentage of U.S. seniors are members of
AARP? What percentage of American gun owners belong to the NRA?
What percentage of veterans belong to the American Legion.


Those are just a few of Carl's gems. There are many, many more.

Dave K8MN


Take your time. At the speed of ARRL, there's no need to hurry.

In light of Carl's ineligibility, there's no need to hurry. The
election has already taken place. Carl Stevenson was not elected.

Dave K8MN

Dee Flint September 13th 06 01:42 AM
You'll probably never have to use CW to save a life.
 

"Dave Heil" wrote in message
ink.net...
wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:

wrote:

[huge snip]

Mama Dee rationalizes that 3/4 of all US amateur radio
licensees are not "joiners." :-)

Who is Mama Dee?


Take a WAG.

Oh! Has Len decided to denigrate another person who disagrees with him?
Isn't that a thing he derides in others. I don't recall Dee Flint ever
acting that way toward Len.


It's amusing that the only way he can do so is by putting down the most
important task that most people will face in their lives: that of raising
their families. This task is far more important than any military or career
success that a person may have. The only thing that can equal it in
importance are those who daily put their lives on the line to protect the
public and our nation.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE




All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:40 PM.
Page 15 of 19 « First 5891011121314 15 16171819
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com