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

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:

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.

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.

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.

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

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:
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.

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.

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?

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

From: on Sat, Sep 9 2006 5:22 pm

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.

[to Jimmy the M:]
What "radio industry" "conflicts with amateur radio," Mr.
Professional in the Transportation Industry?

Yaesu? Kenwood? Icom? JRC? Harris? :-)

Seems to me that the ARRL has featured lots of nice news
squibs of radio industry folks GIVING equipment to ARRL
and W1AW. [not too long ago Harris unloaded a bunch of
TXs to W1AW]

How does WiFi "conflict" with ARRL interests? [Carl's
main work right now...on WiFi and WiMax Standards]

Since Carl Stevenson is Executive Director of No Code
International and the ARRL is against giving up any
morse code test for radio amateur license applicants,
I'd say that's a bona fide built-in CONFLICT of interest
right there.

[wait for the SPIN from the League Believers...]

["Heah come de spin, heah come de spin...:-) ]


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.

Right...their conflict of interest with NCI... :-)


Carl's excellent work on interference-from-BPL speaks for itself.

WHAT is that "interference-from-BPL?"

Seems to me that Carl's work on WiFi was a lot more.

Wireless communications is allocated to different bands than
amateur bands, operating well above 30 MHz where "the bands"
exist for hams.


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?

Funny!

On Friday I finished my 5th "tour of duty" as a jury member in
the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles. Surrounded by
legal beagles of all types and hearing much barking in court,
the word "recuse" was not spoken. "Excuse," yes, on the
challenges of both prosecution and defense to jury panel
members (each can have a particular juror excused without
stating the full cause, up to 10 or 12 or whatever). A jury
panel member can excuse themselves (and should, by law here)
if they are on friendly or social or otherwise involved with
a defendant, an attorney, member of the court, etc.

Newspaper accounts have only lately featured "recuse" as a
fancy word and lots of folks have picked up on it to show
how much smarts they think they have. :-)

Take jury selection. Here in Pennsylvania, there are lots of
occupations and associations that will get someone eliminated from
different types of cases.

In L.A. Superior Court you CANNOT be a jury member if you
are in law enforcement or several other occupations
all spelled out in state LAW. There is no "excusing" there
if one isn't even in the jury pool. :-)

two paragraphs DELETED from J.M, LLd

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.

Bull****, sweetums. Not in this state which outnumbers
"EPA" (Eastern Pennsylvania, which NEEDS the other EPA)
considerably. Selected jury panel members here MUST
EXCUSE (not recuse) themselves if they find out they
know a defendant or members of the court.

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.

More bull**** from the self-proclaimed chief justice...

The ARRL is a PRIVATE ORGANIZATION. They are NOT bound
tightly to some government agency laws and restrictions
IN THE SAME WAY. If the ARRL wants to oust someone or
keep them off the private organization's ballot they CAN
and DO.

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.

TRUE. In the L.A. Superior Court all selected for the
"jury pool" are referred to as jurors or jury members.
We are selected to go to a particular courtroom by a
small random-chance tumbler machine holding our ID
numbers (names are not used, Superior Court assigns
individual ID numbers ahead of time). This forms what
L.A. calls the "jury pool" and in each courtroom the
court clerk selects ID numbers from a similar random-
chance machine to be on a jury (here 12 regular plus
3 alternates). Only after the selection from the pool
do jurors find out about a case. At that point the
judge recites the law on jury members associations
with the case which requires that affected jurors must
excuse themselves, giving reasons to the court. The
jury pool has to remain until prosecution and defense
are finished with their challenges since, if jurors
are excused, one from the pool takes their place.

All of that is for the criminal court. Civil court
has a carbon copy of the LAW, only certain terms
changing from criminal to civil cases.

Elections in a PRIVATE ORGANIZATION are NOWHERE NEAR
having to obey that same, established long ago LAW!

Anyone trying to equate legal court actions to some
private organization elections is way TOTALLY CONFUSED.

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 the ARRL BoD consider themselves as SUPERIOR?

They are the "superior court" of US amateur radio? :-)

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.

What are the FULL-TIME JOBS of the ARRL BoD members?
Anyone know?


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.

Jimmy is trying to equate apples and oranges and getting
fruity there. He wants to make a DIRECT COMPARISON of
the ARRL to some government judicial organization and that
DOES NOT EQUATE!


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.

Brian, in a way we DO know. Carl Stevenson is exec director
of NCI. ARRL is still plugging for code testing. DIRECT
CONFLICT OF INTEREST within the ARRL right there. There
wasn't a snowball's chance in hell of Carl getting on an
ARRL ballot.


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.

Brian, Jimmy is still walking wounded from other industry
professionals pummeling his textual hide in here. :-)
Especially the no-code-test advocates. :-)

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.

We only know that it's the "transportation 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 vote with you, Brian, the Good 'ol Boys of the BoD
and offices within the ARRL want "company men" who
think like they do. None of this brash upsetting of
their traditional applecart.

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).

One can research the TRUE facts of the conclave of
wirepullers in the ARRL but it really isn't worth the
time and trouble. The ARRL will deny any negative
charges, however slight, and SPIN the hell out of it
to make them all Knights in Shining Wonderwear. :-)


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.

That's the final distillate, Brian. :-) Sort of the
"kickapoo joy juice" that keeps US amateur radio
retrograde to the days of H.P.M.

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

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....

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

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

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

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

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

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

From: Dave Heil on Sun, Sep 10 2006 12:35 pm

wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:

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

Tsk, most of Herr Robust's "blah, blah, blah" is ignored. :-)

Believers in the Church of St. Hiram go "bahh, bahh, bahh" like
sheep. shrug

Censorship?

Summary of Len's comments:

Tsk, Herr Robust thinks he can call a Summary court martial.

Len is still suspicious of the ARRL.

Why would anyone be "suspicious" of a private organization
that pretends to be a religious organization? I.e., the
Church of St. Hiram...or imagine they are a part of
the US government with their "free elections?" :-)

Len believes Carl should have been allowed to run.

Tsk. That is NOT what I wrote. It would be a snowball's
chance in hell for a no-code-test advocate to be even
considered for getting on any ARRL ballot. :-)

Can't you get ANYTHING right?

Len believes that Carl would have brought change, even
if he would have been one of many ARRL Directors if elected.

You still did NOT get anything right.

NOBODY new can change the "minds" of the ARRL good 'ol
bouys club. They are afloat in a sea of retrograde.

Membership in the ARRL is still a minority of all licensed
US radio amateurs. It never reached a quarter of all of
them, yet the ARRL does its PR BS about "representing" ALL
of [US] amateur radio.

Len is still not a radio amateur and not an ARRL member.

No and yes. I have a hobby of electronics homebrewing
which sometimes includes radio. Since that activity is
paid for solely by myself, it is considered "amateur."

I am a professional in electronics engineering, have long
held a Commercial radio operator license, and am a Life
Member of the Institute for Electrical and Electronic
Engineers (IEEE), a professional organization.

Baaaad summary, Davie boy, bad, bad...go sit in corner.

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.

Oh, wow, did Herr Robust get THAT bs WRONG!

Poor baby, let me repeat: I am an advocate of eliminating
the morse code TEST for US radio amateurs. That is it.

I could not possibly hope to tell Herr Heil "what to do!"
:-) Herr Heil KNOWS ALL and doesn't hesitate to slam
anyone who does not love, honor, and obey the ARRL.

Dave K8MN

Perhaps Carl would have championed the reciprocol frequency rule.

"Reciprocal"

Oooo! Oooo! Herr Heil has worked up a rage, "signed" his
post, then HAD to try to rub all eyes in the dirt of his own
spreading!


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

Davie is a composer. Up there is his opus, "The Unfinished
Insult." :-) [it is in Be Flat]

Herr Heil had to pause, go and search Google for quotes,
making sure to take only those that could be isolated out of
their message context...

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."

ARRL *is* a virtual monopoly on United States amateur radio
publications. Having that means they can influence all of
their readership to ARRL viewpoints. They can brainwash
opinions very easily...and have appeared to do just that.

As a private organization they are NOT bound to rules and
regulations that apply to REAL government...yet they
pretend to be a "representative" of ALL US radio amateurs.

Tsk, ARRL still hasn't achieved a membership as large as
a quarter of all US amateur radio licensees. Yet.

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

NOT a "company man" attitude. Carl was already to be
excluded from the coterie of coders that makes up the
conclave of wirepullers in the ARRL.

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

More non-company-man statements...even if an accurate quote.

['Herman' is a morse zealot-bigot in Hawaii who is a
junior college math instructor but bills himself as a
"mathematics LECTURER." :-) ]

BELIEVERS in the Church of St. Hiram cannot accept the
statements of non-believers even if they are TRUE.

"...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".

True enough. ARRL membership hasn't grown past the
under-one-quarter of all licensed US radio amateurs.

"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."

True enough. ARRL membership hasn't grown past the
under-one-quarter of all licensed US radio amateurs.

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

And Google is full of Herr Heil's own personal insults
levelled at any "heretic" not worshiping at the Church of
St. Hiram. Heil is BELIEVER and may want to be a deacon
when he should be a beacon.

Tsk, Davie's derring-do on behalf of the Church elders
has turned out to be herring doo-doo. Yuck.

Poor guy can't realize that is NOT a good attitude to
get others INTO US amateur radio. He is a RULER.
["give a ham an inch and he thinks he is a ruler"]

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

"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

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

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 rather than remain among the down trodden.

"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.

"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.

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

Did they?

"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?

"...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 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.

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.

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

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

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.

:-)

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

So only drones are electable in the ARRL?

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?

Is it yours?

"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 renewed.

One day, probably far, far into the future, I may have the opportunity
to vote for a No-Code Exam candidate.

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.

With the exception of the code exam, you might be right. But we'll
never know.

"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.

Len's NOT a homo?

"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've got great rewd blood cells, so count on me mentioning it far into
the future.

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.

Youn keep mentioning that until you're blue in the face.

"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.

Balance in all things... It's part of the amateur's code. Do you know
the amateur's code?

"...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.

You'll never know.

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

And mustard.

"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's the person who says other people like her aren't joiners, but she
joined.

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

Don't be silly. Of course not.

Plenty of people who passed the Morse Exams advocate the end to Morse
Exams.

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

Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:

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.

Yes, 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.

Am I to understand that my residence in the GLD precludes me from free
speech in the Roanoke Division?

Must be something new at the HQ that hasn't been publicized yet. I'll
be watching for that announcement in the ARRL Letter, and of your run
of office in the Roanoke Division.

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

Dave Heil wrote:

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

I'll couple your next typo to that statement in preperation for your
run for the Roanoke Division.

Dave K8MN

Thanks for your opinion.

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

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

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

From: on Wed, Sep 13 2006 4:17 am


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.

The point is that ethical people behave ethically.

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

...but a soap like "Safeguard" would cut down their body
odor.


You missed that part.

No, I didn't.

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

Morsemen?


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

If they were morsemen they would know everything...


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?

It would be if they were all morsemen?

Beep, boop,

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

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?

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

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?

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

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?

You missed that part.

No, I didn't.

Yes, you did.

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

Apparently, ONLY the BoD.

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?

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.