You'll probably never have to use CW to save a life.
 

Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
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.

I've seen the way you and your friend Mark act here on r.r.a.p. I don't
suppose that it has anything to do with amateur radio license class.

Why would a bunch of
other Extras act any differently?

What you've done is add two and two and come up with an erroneous result.

Dave K8MN

Of course. You're right. You're always right. You're an Extra.

You'll probably never have to use CW to save a life.
 

wrote:
On 13 Sep 2006 16:59:53 -0700, wrote:


wrote:
On 13 Sep 2006 16:42:44 -0700, wrote:


Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

[snip]

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.


Yeah the same reason that 75% of the people I know don't belong to
organizations of whatever hobby they do participate in. They're just not
"joiners".

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

But this isn't stamp collecting or fly-tying. It isn't even soccer or
la crosse.

This is amateur radio where lives are saved and we are everybody's comm
back-up.

Don't you think we could get a little more participation?

have you noticed it is hobby when that serves to excuse something, and
a Service like the army or at least CAP when there is something being
promoted as vital it (like code testing)

A-yup. I notice it all.

How are we to "join" in an emergency when we cannot join in everday
life?

I know you did notice but the rest of the boozos need it pointed out

They have a very odd way of looking at the world.

I don't volonteer much myself becuase of Ham's Like Robeson and in a
real emergency my dad health is my first concern as well as the BS
"courses" they want to you take these days

I think the ARRL courses are probably good, though I haven't actually
seen them. Standardization of terms and procedures has to be a good
thing. The Fed, State, and Local governments are standardizing on the
FEMA NIMS/ICS protocol. If they want Fed money, that is.

Recall the thread where I asked if anyone here had actually taken any
of the ARRL courses???

I think I'm going to sign up for the antenna modelling course this
winter for an inside activity.

You'll probably never have to use CW to save a life.
 

You'll probably never have to use CW to save a life.
 

wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
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.

Yes, that's the point.

It wasn't the point I made.

The point is that ethical people behave ethically.

People who behave ethically at all times don't need safeguards.

So ARRL leaders need safeguards?

Anyone in a position of authority, power, or decision making needs
safeguards. History has shown this to be true many times.

People who behave ethically at all times aren't bothered by safeguards.

So why are Democrats so bothered by the Patriot Amendment?

You missed that part.

No, I didn't.

Yes, you did.

And who defines what "ethics" are the right ones?

Apparently, ONLY the BoD.

And the membership.

So why in 20 years of ARRL membership have I never encountered an
ethics issue on the ballots?

Was it ethical to appoint someone with no emergency management
experience to head FEMA?

Should the Democrats eventually regain a majority in the House, or the
Whitehouse, will they behave ethically, or as they've always behaved?

They don't have to behave to a very high standard to be more ethical
than the Current Occupants.

Perhaps. But no matter how low the bar, the Democrats probably cannot
rise to it.

Was it ethical to give lucrative no-bid contracts to a company that
used to be run by a top administrator who helped make the decision?

That's exactly what Pres. Clinton did in 1995 when he attacked
Yugoslavia. Haliburton, no-bid, huge cost overruns. NO PROBLEM.

Who says it wasn't a problem?

You never mentioned it before.

And the contracts I referred to were for 2005 hurricane relief efforts.
Hurricanes aren't a new thing, yet the efforts to deal with them were
handled a lot better by previous administrations.

Bush Sr.

August 1992. "Andrew would ultimately become the most expensive
natural disaster in American history. More than 60 people were killed
and scores more injured, 117,000 homes were destroyed or suffered major
damage, some two million residents had to be temporarily evacuated.
Flooding and high winds destroyed thousands of acres of crops. And
overall estimates placed the storm's cost at more than $20 billion."

And was it Clinton who went into Yugoslavia - or the UN?

You know the answer to that one, and you know that I know, so don't lie
to me.

Was it done to start a war or to stop one?

We had absolutely no interests in Yugoslavia. It was a European
problem that they could have handled.

And how did that effort turn out?

Lots and lots of new DX.

Was there more violence, disorder and
destruction in Yugoslavia after "Mission Accomplished" than before?

Clinton had an exit strategy. No matter what, we would be out in one
year. Clinton was saying that as I tagged people during the 1995
Thanksgiving week. Just the other day I ran into some soldiers that
were returning from Bosnia.

You'll probably never have to use CW to save a life.
 

"Slow Code" wrote in message
link.net...
"Unit 200" anon@anon wrote in :

Long time no hear, Len. Good to see that you are out and about and
belaboring Usenet with your tripe.
I'm sure that you feel much relieved after posting a ten paragraph
diatribe...you oldsters seem to feel like youngsters after passing a few
cubic feet of natural gas.
Did you rattle your Rely diapers while so doing?
You didn't "brit your ****ches", did you? I hate it when Flatulent Old
Men play their tunes while pretending they are not the fartee....



ROFLMAO


That was good.

Sc


Psssssst! I hate to break this to you, but if you are lucky enough to
survive, you too will be old some day. Come to think of it, with your
smartassed attitudes, the chances of that happening are pretty slim.

Sparky

The "Patriot Amendment"
 

wrote:
wrote:
Anyone in a position of authority, power, or decision making needs
safeguards. History has shown this to be true many times.

People who behave ethically at all times aren't bothered by safeguards.

So why are Democrats so bothered by the Patriot Amendment?

If by the "Patriot Amendment" you mean this:

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Presiden..._amendment_act

the answer is that it looks like an attempt by the Current Occupant to
remove safeguards.

And it's not just Democrats:

Quoting Wikinews:

Sen. Lindsey Graham voiced concern over the way national security is
being used as a catch all phrase in this and a number of other signing
statements, saying "If you take this to its logical conclusion, because
during war the commander in chief has an obligation to protect us, any
statute on the books could be summarily waived,"

Sen. Graham is a Republican from South Carolina.


---

It seems like the word "Patriot" gets attached to all sorts of things
in an attempt to avoid criticism or scrutiny.

The "Patriot Amendment"
 

wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
Anyone in a position of authority, power, or decision making needs
safeguards. History has shown this to be true many times.

People who behave ethically at all times aren't bothered by safeguards.

So why are Democrats so bothered by the Patriot Amendment?

If by the "Patriot Amendment" you mean this:

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Presiden..._amendment_act

the answer is that it looks like an attempt by the Current Occupant to
remove safeguards.

And it's not just Democrats:

Quoting Wikinews:

Sen. Lindsey Graham voiced concern over the way national security is
being used as a catch all phrase in this and a number of other signing
statements, saying "If you take this to its logical conclusion, because
during war the commander in chief has an obligation to protect us, any
statute on the books could be summarily waived,"

Sen. Graham is a Republican from South Carolina.


---

It seems like the word "Patriot" gets attached to all sorts of things
in an attempt to avoid criticism or scrutiny.

...just like each and every radio amateur is "being a 'service' to
their
country"? :-)

Beep, beep,

The "Patriot Amendment"
 

wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
Anyone in a position of authority, power, or decision making needs
safeguards. History has shown this to be true many times.

People who behave ethically at all times aren't bothered by safeguards.

So why are Democrats so bothered by the Patriot Amendment?

If by the "Patriot Amendment" you mean this:

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Presiden..._amendment_act

the answer is that it looks like an attempt by the Current Occupant to
remove safeguards.

And it's not just Democrats:

Quoting Wikinews:

Sen. Lindsey Graham voiced concern over the way national security is
being used as a catch all phrase in this and a number of other signing
statements, saying "If you take this to its logical conclusion, because
during war the commander in chief has an obligation to protect us, any
statute on the books could be summarily waived,"

Sen. Graham is a Republican from South Carolina.

Yes, Sen Graham is a Republican from South Carolina. Are you from
South Carolina? Does Sen Graham represent you?

And GW could have declared martial law on 9/11. He's trying to go the
least disruptive route for the most people. Most people aren't
terrorists.

Since the birth of this nation, the US Post Office has been looking at
the addressee and the return address on every piece of first class mail
that they've handled. The government even goes so far as to walk right
up to the addressee, even if private property, and give them their
message.

And if something suspicious shows up in the US Mail, the Postmaster is
allowed to open it. The sender and the receiver are both subject to
investigation.

Today, under the "Patriot Act," the US Government gets to see the
originating phone number, the destination phone number, and if there
are suspicious trigger words, the contents of the message may be seen.


I think the two systems of communications should share similar risks of
eavesdropping. Why shouldn't it be so?

If you are choosing to afford terrorists equal protection, I think
you're nuts.

The "Patriot Amendment"
 

wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
Anyone in a position of authority, power, or decision making needs
safeguards. History has shown this to be true many times.

People who behave ethically at all times aren't bothered by safeguards.

So why are Democrats so bothered by the Patriot Amendment?

If by the "Patriot Amendment" you mean this:

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Presiden..._amendment_act

the answer is that it looks like an attempt by the Current Occupant to
remove safeguards.

And it's not just Democrats:

Quoting Wikinews:

Sen. Lindsey Graham voiced concern over the way national security is
being used as a catch all phrase in this and a number of other signing
statements, saying "If you take this to its logical conclusion, because
during war the commander in chief has an obligation to protect us, any
statute on the books could be summarily waived,"

Sen. Graham is a Republican from South Carolina.


---

It seems like the word "Patriot" gets attached to all sorts of things
in an attempt to avoid criticism or scrutiny.

...just like each and every radio amateur is "being a 'service' to
their
country"? :-)

Beep, beep,



Yep, every Robesin taunt is a service...

You'll probably never have to use CW to save a life.
 

"Ed Cregger" wrote in
:


"Slow Code" wrote in message
link.net...
"Unit 200" anon@anon wrote in :

Long time no hear, Len. Good to see that you are out and about and
belaboring Usenet with your tripe.
I'm sure that you feel much relieved after posting a ten paragraph
diatribe...you oldsters seem to feel like youngsters after passing a
few cubic feet of natural gas.
Did you rattle your Rely diapers while so doing?
You didn't "brit your ****ches", did you? I hate it when Flatulent Old
Men play their tunes while pretending they are not the fartee....



ROFLMAO


That was good.

Sc


Psssssst! I hate to break this to you, but if you are lucky enough to
survive, you too will be old some day. Come to think of it, with your
smartassed attitudes, the chances of that happening are pretty slim.

Sparky



I'd rather be a smartass than a dumb ass, Dumb Ass.

Lenny is full of hot air. It was hilarious watching the original poster
point that out to him.

Now don't let the door hit you in the butt on the way out.

SC