Mike Coslo wrote in message ...
Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

Dick Carroll; wrote:

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote:



"Dick Carroll;" wrote in message
...


As you may know, FISTS has many times the membership numbers of NCI.

How many *US* licensees are members of FISTS, Dick?


Many times the number of *US* NCI members, Carl.

It doesn't take a majority to win an issue, Dick. All it takes is an
irate minority that is prepared to be loud and active.


No, what it takes are rational, compelling arguments that support
your position ... NCI had them in the case of WT 98-143, the
PCTAs couldn't come up with ANY (because there are no rational,
compelling arguments for keeping Morse testing).



What do they do for an encore?


We present more rational, compelling arguments, of course.


Carl, with all due respect, "rational and compelling arguments" are in
the head of the beholder.

Then the words "rational" and "irrational" have no meaning.

Brian wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote in message ...

Carl R. Stevenson wrote:


some snippage


We present more rational, compelling arguments, of course.


Carl, with all due respect, "rational and compelling arguments" are in
the head of the beholder.


Then the words "rational" and "irrational" have no meaning.

1. Everyone here thinks they are being rational, unless they are being
purposefully non-rational. (say Bruce for example, who is having fun
baiting people - and even in his case, take note that when he is
starting to be serious his spelling and grammar become correct)

2. You really aren't that far from the truth.

3. Insane people are exempt from all this. But there really aren't that
many insane people.

My rationale is that what is or isn't rational is based on the starting
assumption or world view.

If your basic assumption is that things should be simplified or to be
made easier, then you would agree with a proposal such as the NCI
proposal before the FCC. It is rational and compelling from that viewpoint.

If you believe that simplification is not necessary or desirable, you
are more likely to find the FISTS proposal rational and compelling.


- Mike KB3EIA -

Mike Coslo wrote in message ...
Brian wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote in message ...

Carl R. Stevenson wrote:


some snippage


We present more rational, compelling arguments, of course.


Carl, with all due respect, "rational and compelling arguments" are in
the head of the beholder.


Then the words "rational" and "irrational" have no meaning.

1. Everyone here thinks they are being rational, unless they are being
purposefully non-rational. (say Bruce for example, who is having fun
baiting people - and even in his case, take note that when he is
starting to be serious his spelling and grammar become correct)

Bruce is an stupendous and amazing man.

2. You really aren't that far from the truth.

Oh, geez.

3. Insane people are exempt from all this. But there really aren't that
many insane people.

Not even Hinkley?

My rationale is that what is or isn't rational is based on the starting
assumption or world view.

Always is.

If your basic assumption is that things should be simplified or to be
made easier, then you would agree with a proposal such as the NCI
proposal before the FCC. It is rational and compelling from that viewpoint.

My basic assumption is there are some things the government should be
doing and there are some things that the government shouldn't be
doing.

We could start with the Constitution of the United States and its
Articles, and try to find the rationale for a welfare state.

Brian