![]() |
"Brian" wrote i Is that documentable? Letters and pictures with circles and arrows? Build yourself a time machine and go back 40 years and look. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
"N2EY" wrote in message ... In article om, "Dee D. Flint" writes: "N2EY" wrote in message ... In article , (Brian) writes: You don't seem to recognize that the desire to modernize the ARS has a groundswell of support. How do you know? Have you made a scientific survey to determine this "groundswell"? What constitutes "modernizing the ARS"? Shall we all go out and buy new radios? It doesn't need to be filtered through state and regional directors, brought up in a board meeting, with lots of hand-wringing that there is no clear mandate... Then what needs to be done? What is the "mandate"? Some folks make a big deal out of the fact that ARRL's membership is only about 25% of US hams. These same folks ignore the fact that No-Code International's membership is less than 1% of US hams, despite the fact that such membership has no dues and no expiration or renewal requirements. And let's keep in mind that NCI does have a structure with officers and a board. The detailed policies and procedures were developed by those officers and that board based on the organization's stated goal. Thus it was "filtered" through a limited group. Excellent point, Dee! What's the point? Would anyone expect that the creation of NCI (or just about any other organization) doesn't start on the initiative of a small group that founded the organization? One thing that the NCI has quite convincingly demonstrated is that HARD WORK is what is required to achieve a goal. Although I don't agree with their goal, I must commend them for getting in there and doing the work required. They did not sit on their hands and whine. Very true - but how much "hard work" was really required? Depends on how you measure it. I know I made a trip to the FCC with Carl to make a direct presentation on an "exparte" basis. There was lots of other stuff done by different folks (web site creation, process membership donations, etc.) - They set up a website and a board - They made a proposal to FCC and two directors went to Washington (on their own nickel, BTW) for an ex parte (3 hour drive at most) 3 hour drive...more like 4-5 hours one way. - They petitioned FCC after the treaty changed They organized on a world wide basis. They lobbied the various governing bodies around the world to support a change in the code requirement at the last ITU conference. How much did that really take? Do you want some sort of accounting :-) :-) It is all the more convincing when one considers the low percentage of hams belonging to NCI. It shows that the minority can prevail if they have the commitment. And if the governing bodies are already headed in that direction to begin with. We've had a nocodetest amateur license here in the USA since 1991 - that's more than 5 years before NCI was started. No argument there and we'll never know the weight of NCI's role in the 98-143 decisions...but who cares anyway? NCI did what we did to further the end result. If anyone knew the result beforehand, let them speak now. failing that, NCI wasn't about to trust to chance not doing what we did. If, in the end, it really wasn't necessary, then we don't care. We did what we believed was necessary to further our cause. Personally I support code testing but NCI certainly did their homework to achieve their goal. Agreed! Thanks...and I do think a number of folks in this newsgroup did not expect anything of significance to come from those of us that formed NCI in the beginning. Those same people (IMHO) thought NCI just was a group of people posting in this newsgroup...they never expected the core of NCI had life experience in FCC dealings, organization skills, web skills, legal document writing, etc. To NCI's credit, NCI commentary was quoted several times in the FCC R&O on 98-143 to bolster FCC conclusions. That's a significant accomplishment (IMHO). Anyway, it has been a relatively good year...even of the FCC is dragging their feet on droppng code in the USA :-) :-) Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message igy.com...
"N2EY" wrote in message ... In article , (Brian) writes: You don't seem to recognize that the desire to modernize the ARS has a groundswell of support. How do you know? Have you made a scientific survey to determine this "groundswell"? What constitutes "modernizing the ARS"? Shall we all go out and buy new radios? It doesn't need to be filtered through state and regional directors, brought up in a board meeting, with lots of hand-wringing that there is no clear mandate... Then what needs to be done? What is the "mandate"? Some folks make a big deal out of the fact that ARRL's membership is only about 25% of US hams. These same folks ignore the fact that No-Code International's membership is less than 1% of US hams, despite the fact that such membership has no dues and no expiration or renewal requirements. And let's keep in mind that NCI does have a structure with officers and a board. The detailed policies and procedures were developed by those officers and that board based on the organization's stated goal. Thus it was "filtered" through a limited group. One thing that the NCI has quite convincingly demonstrated is that HARD WORK is what is required to achieve a goal. Although I don't agree with their goal, I must commend them for getting in there and doing the work required. They did not sit on their hands and whine. They organized on a world wide basis. They lobbied the various governing bodies around the world to support a change in the code requirement at the last ITU conference. It is all the more convincing when one considers the low percentage of hams belonging to NCI. It shows that the minority can prevail if they have the commitment. Personally I support code testing but NCI certainly did their homework to achieve their goal. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE And I've supported NCI in principle and financially. Unfortunately, I don't have the capacity to counter every troll post by made by the PCTA. Forgive me. So in the end, the minority has greatly influenced the silent majority within the ARS, and serious discussion is being given to a full access codeless license. |
(N2EY) wrote in message ...
In article om, "Dee D. Flint" writes: "N2EY" wrote in message ... In article , (Brian) writes: You don't seem to recognize that the desire to modernize the ARS has a groundswell of support. How do you know? Have you made a scientific survey to determine this "groundswell"? What constitutes "modernizing the ARS"? Shall we all go out and buy new radios? It doesn't need to be filtered through state and regional directors, brought up in a board meeting, with lots of hand-wringing that there is no clear mandate... Then what needs to be done? What is the "mandate"? Some folks make a big deal out of the fact that ARRL's membership is only about 25% of US hams. These same folks ignore the fact that No-Code International's membership is less than 1% of US hams, despite the fact that such membership has no dues and no expiration or renewal requirements. And let's keep in mind that NCI does have a structure with officers and a board. The detailed policies and procedures were developed by those officers and that board based on the organization's stated goal. Thus it was "filtered" through a limited group. Excellent point, Dee! One thing that the NCI has quite convincingly demonstrated is that HARD WORK is what is required to achieve a goal. Although I don't agree with their goal, I must commend them for getting in there and doing the work required. They did not sit on their hands and whine. Very true - but how much "hard work" was really required? - They set up a website and a board - They made a proposal to FCC and two directors went to Washington (on their own nickel, BTW) for an ex parte (3 hour drive at most) - They petitioned FCC after the treaty changed They organized on a world wide basis. They lobbied the various governing bodies around the world to support a change in the code requirement at the last ITU conference. How much did that really take? It is all the more convincing when one considers the low percentage of hams belonging to NCI. It shows that the minority can prevail if they have the commitment. And if the governing bodies are already headed in that direction to begin with. We've had a nocodetest amateur license here in the USA since 1991 - that's more than 5 years before NCI was started. Personally I support code testing but NCI certainly did their homework to achieve their goal. Agreed! 73 de Jim, N2EY If NCI were really such an ineffective, do-nothing organization, how do you explain the groundswell of support for full access to HF w/o a Morse Code exam? Perhaps it was just an idea whose time had come? Which say a lot about the real need for the retention of the code exam, and all the warfare you've taken part in. |
"KØHB" wrote in message ink.net...
"Brian" wrote i Is that documentable? Letters and pictures with circles and arrows? Build yourself a time machine and go back 40 years and look. Hansel, if you don't have the proper documentation then it doesn't count. |
"Brian" wrote Hansel, if you don't have the proper documentation then it doesn't count. Brian, you have me confused with someone who gives a **** how you feel about documentation. In other words, you don't count. Kill-file=ON. Plonk. With warmest personal regards, de Hans, K0HB |
|
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 22:32:56 -0600, Kim W5TIT wrote:
Less road maintenance and construction? For sure. I haven't driven anywhere in Texas since 1979 without some kind of road maintenance or construction going on, literally. Don't need it. You must have a wonderful car/truck that fills in the potholes just ahead of your driving over them. I couldn't be objective with the police and fire protection. I don't live in an area where I either need a lot of that or see any benefit of it. Wait 'till your building catches on fire or you need paramedic service after a fall. Been there, glad that it was available. Since then I've been one of the biggest boosters for the local fire department when budget time comes up. Education. Well, let's see. Up north when my kids went to school in the public school system, I cannot remember ever having to buy their school supplies when they were in elementary school. One of the fun times as a kid was when Mom took us to the local stationery store for our school supplies at the beginning of the school year - pencils, crayons, a new ruler, notebooks and pads, book covers, erasers, all sorts of stuff. Down here, I pay school taxes PLUS had to spend about $200.00 per kid each year of school up to about 7th grade, for their school supplies. What do you have to buy for that price? If it includes books I can agree. They should be supplied at no cost to the student.. Social Security, in my opinon, is a farce. Do away with it. I and a lot of others here and elsewhere receive SocSec retirement benefits. Fix it, don't wreck it any further. Medicare and Medicaid I am happy to provide for my elderly community. However, again fat trimming probably would save lots of money. The recent "improvement" in Medicare was a big step backwards. I get Medicare as well as private health insurance benefits and I pay handsomely for both. The only difference with Medicare included is that I don't have to pay a co-pay for office visits and for that privilege I pay a lot more in "Medicare monthly payments". Who ever said that Medicare is free? Not only no, but hell no. I'd rather see people get ****ed off enough at the ridiculous spending that goes on with our tax dollars. Trim all the ridiculous spending, and some of the cuts I am talking about would hardly be noticed. Yeah, that's it. Don't pay a pension to those retired employees who invested their after-tax income in government pension plans while they worked their a**es off for diminished salaries because they believed in using their skills for the benefit of the citizenry. Especially my late father-in-law who was a civilian USAF engine mechanic who got forgotten in an engine housing and spent almost 15 minutes baking in 110 degree heat in the desert... Why am I wasting my time debating this ?? -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane |
Dwight Stewart wrote:
"Dee D. Flint" wrote: (snip) One thing that the NCI has quite convincingly demonstrated is that HARD WORK is what is required to achieve a goal. (snip) They organized on a world wide basis. They lobbied the various governing bodies around the world to support a change in the code requirement at the last ITU conference. (snip) It shows that the minority can prevail if they have the commitment. I think you're giving NCI way too much credit, Dee. Indeed, created in the late 90's, they came to the debate rather late and have done little beyond urging members to file comments on related issues before the FCC (no visible government lobbying and no significant world-wide organization - a few members in a few countries). If anything, NCI's most significant contribution, once they did arrive on the scene, has been to serve as a lightning rod for criticism from code supporters, leaving a vastly greater number of non-members relatively free to make the case against code testing wherever possible. Moreover, there would have been no gains at all if there had been no substance to the core arguments against code testing. Those arguments existed, and were being made, long before NCI joined the debate. I agree, Dwight. What I find most distressing about NCI is that as a late comer to the game, they were in a position to offer some leadership in the "brave new world" post CW. While there is no question that Carl supports retention of technical acumen in the service, some other members do not. If I were in charge, I would have a plan all mapped out to fill the coming vacuum. Of course its hard for me to say what that plan would be, because I support continuned Morse code testing. 8^) - Mike KB3EIA - |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:01 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com