N2EY wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo writes:


Carl R. Stevenson wrote:


I've explained out committment to our members' privacy. If FISTS
doesn't have the same policy, that's their choice, and thus, you could
have answered my question without breaching any confidence. I can't
do the same because of the committment we have made to our members.


Can't you think of a better reason? Let's say there are 5000 members of


NCI.


The important question is "how many active US hams" are members. Comparing the
total number in one group with the number of active US hams in another is
slanted.

Explain how saying There are 5000 members of NCI is violating
anyones privacy.


Good question! And we're still waiting for an answer.

And still waiting. I can't figure out why that is such a troublesome thing.



We're not asking for names or calls, just the number of US licensed hams who
are members. Anyone can determine the FISTS numbers. Why is NCI so secretive
about theirs - particularly if the numbers don't really matter?

I'm beginning to formulate an opinion on that. Probably the same one
you are.


I recall reading here a statement by Carl that those in the minority should
learn to take 'no' for an answer and get on with life. (Those are HIS words,
not mine).

That is one of the polite things people say when what they really want
to say "SHUT UP and quit bothering me". Autocratics in action.

But just as it doesn't happen in politics, it doesn't happen here.
Would he have taken his own advice in the early days of NCI.


What if it turned out (as it did in 1998-99) that the NCI position is a
minority opinion?

It doesn't take a majority. It takes noise.

- Mike KB3EIA -