Paul,

Fully agreed - I found the survey quite by accident when I was looking
up sonething on the RAC web site in August, otherwise I would not have
missed it too..

Was it advertised in the magazine? If so, I don'rt recall seeing it!

Hopefully, the ARRL won't try to pull the same stunt....whatever way
the vote goes, it should fairly represent the wishes of the Amateur
community, not a small (and perhaps biased??) sampling.

73, Leo

On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 19:16:41 +0000 (UTC), (Paul Erickson)
wrote:

snip

73, Leo

Hi Leo, and RAC did their typical job of making sure their CW
agenda has the guise of widespread canadian amateur approval.

Noone I know knew of the survey, and I strongly suspect that
if the majority of canadian amateurs had really been aware of it,
the results would probably have been different.

I have discussed the issue over the years with a number of
directors, and Jim Cummings, and cannot express
my disgust at the way it was handled.

cheers, Paul - VA7NT

Hmmm - let;s try that paragraph again!

Fully agreed - I found the survey quite by accident when I was looking
up sonething on the RAC web site in August, otherwise I would have
missed it too..


Duh - @#$%^& typos.....

Fully agreed - I found the survey quite by accident when I was looking
up sonething on the RAC web site in August, otherwise I would not have
missed it too..

"Leo" wrote in message
...
Paul,

Fully agreed - I found the survey quite by accident when I was looking
up sonething on the RAC web site in August, otherwise I would not have
missed it too..

Was it advertised in the magazine? If so, I don'rt recall seeing it!

Hopefully, the ARRL won't try to pull the same stunt....whatever way
the vote goes, it should fairly represent the wishes of the Amateur
community, not a small (and perhaps biased??) sampling.

73, Leo

Given that:

1) the ARRL's membership represents 25% of US licensees

and

2) that the membership is HEAVILY stacked with long-time
hams (Techs have stayed away in droves - in my view because
they correctly have viewd ARRL's Morse policy as designed
to keep them off of HF)

I would, even giving the ARRL credit for the best of intentions,
submit that any survey of ARRL membership is unlikely to be
TRULY representative of the views of the majority of US hams.

Carl - w3kc

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...

Given that:

1) the ARRL's membership represents 25% of US licensees

and

2) that the membership is HEAVILY stacked with long-time
hams (Techs have stayed away in droves - in my view because
they correctly have viewd ARRL's Morse policy as designed
to keep them off of HF)


OK print the demographic DATA that shows that the ARRL membership is
deficient in Technician class licenses. Right now you are presenting an
unsupported opinion. The policy was never designed to keep them off HF.
The policy was intended to require what the membership believed to be a
valuable communications tool. Based on the Techs I know, just as many (or
just as few) join the ARRL as is typical of holders of other license
classes.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee,

As well, consider that the RAC does not represent anywhere near all of
the Canadian amateurs. Their survey was, in all fairness, an open
poll available to members and non-members alike.

Just one problem, though - they did not publicise it well (or at
all...), which limited the votes to those who knew of it or stumbled
upon it - and as Paul pointed out earlier today, this has led to the
suspicion that the deck may have been stacked by RAC's leadership.

73, Leo

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 00:22:05 GMT, "Dee D. Flint"
wrote:


"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...

Given that:

1) the ARRL's membership represents 25% of US licensees

and

2) that the membership is HEAVILY stacked with long-time
hams (Techs have stayed away in droves - in my view because
they correctly have viewd ARRL's Morse policy as designed
to keep them off of HF)


OK print the demographic DATA that shows that the ARRL membership is
deficient in Technician class licenses. Right now you are presenting an
unsupported opinion. The policy was never designed to keep them off HF.
The policy was intended to require what the membership believed to be a
valuable communications tool. Based on the Techs I know, just as many (or
just as few) join the ARRL as is typical of holders of other license
classes.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Dick Carroll" wrote in message
...


Carl R. Stevenson wrote:

(Techs have stayed away in droves - in my view because
they correctly have viewd ARRL's Morse policy as designed
to keep them off of HF)



When you codebashers gonna make up your minds?? the earlier story was
that techn just didn't care about HF.

Dick ... produce the post where I said "techs don't care about/want to get
on HF" ... you can't because I never said that.

Carl - wk3c

"Dick Carroll" wrote in message
...


Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
"Dick Carroll" wrote in message
...


Carl R. Stevenson wrote:

(Techs have stayed away in droves - in my view because

they correctly have viewd ARRL's Morse policy as designed
to keep them off of HF)



When you codebashers gonna make up your minds?? the earlier story was
that techn just didn't care about HF.


Dick ... produce the post where I said "techs don't care about/want to
get
on HF" ... you can't because I never said that.


YOU aren't NCI, though. Many times one or the other code opponent has
stated that very thing. "Techs don't upgrade because they're happy where
they are".. We've seen this repeatedly.


And, is not upgrading because someone is happy where they are, a problem?
When are you making your first million/yr., DICK, or are you happy where you
are?

Kim W5TIT

"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
...
"Dick Carroll" wrote in message
...


Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
"Dick Carroll" wrote in message
...


Carl R. Stevenson wrote:

(Techs have stayed away in droves - in my view because

they correctly have viewd ARRL's Morse policy as designed
to keep them off of HF)



When you codebashers gonna make up your minds?? the earlier story was
that techn just didn't care about HF.


Dick ... produce the post where I said "techs don't care about/want to
get
on HF" ... you can't because I never said that.


YOU aren't NCI, though. Many times one or the other code opponent has
stated that very thing. "Techs don't upgrade because they're happy where
they are".. We've seen this repeatedly.


And, is not upgrading because someone is happy where they are, a problem?
When are you making your first million/yr., DICK, or are you happy where
you
are?

Kim W5TIT



This is your brain....this is your brain on TIT.

Dan/W4NTI

"Dick Carroll" wrote in message
...


Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
"Dick Carroll" wrote in message
...


Carl R. Stevenson wrote:

(Techs have stayed away in droves - in my view because

they correctly have viewd ARRL's Morse policy as designed
to keep them off of HF)



When you codebashers gonna make up your minds?? the earlier story was
that techn just didn't care about HF.


Dick ... produce the post where I said "techs don't care about/want to
get
on HF" ... you can't because I never said that.


YOU aren't NCI, though. Many times one or the other code opponent has
stated that very thing. "Techs don't upgrade because they're happy where
they are".. We've seen this repeatedly.

No, I'm not NCI ... but I can speak authoritatively on NCI positions.
NCI has never said that either.

Carl - wk3c

"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
...

And, is not upgrading because someone is happy where they are, a problem?
When are you making your first million/yr., DICK, or are you happy where
you
are?

Kim W5TIT



There is absolutely nothing wrong with people being happy where they are.
But we get two different stories out of some people. Techs crying because
they aren't getting HF privileges and Techs not upgrading because they are
happy where they are. If the latter is the true case, then there is no need
to make any changes in any portion of the test requirements and NCI has no
reason to exist.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE