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

In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

"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

1A) NCI's membership represents 0.5% of US amateur licensees..

and

2) that the membership is HEAVILY stacked with long-time
hams

How do you know? Without membership data, this is pure speculation on your
part.

(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)

Again, pure speculation. Without membership data, it's impossible to know how
many members are of any license class. Even harder to discern is why some are
members and some aren't. For example, I have heard many Techs say things like:

- "$39 is too much money for the magazine"
- "The ARRL is a national organization, and my focus is local and regional"
- "QST is too technical"
- "QST isn't technical enough"
- "There's not enough stuff about what I'm interested in"

ARRL's Morse code test policy is derived from what members want. If enough
nocodetest hams join and elect directors who support their views, the policy
will change.

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.

I submit that any survey of NCI membership is unlikely to be
TRULY representative of the views of the majority of US hams.

73 de Jim, N2EY