KØHB wrote:

"Bill Sohl" wrote


BUT, his NCI membership doesn't tie NCI to Han's personal support
for an entry level license.



Are you saying that NCI does not reciprocate my support for their goals?
That would certainly be a strange sort of membership-organization.

Sorry Hans! Only elimination of the Test!


And that is what bothers me about NCI.

But it is a great way to dodge responsibility! 8^)

- Mike KB3EIA -

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

Amateur radio FUN is only "ancilliary" to the U.S. amateur radio
SERVICE. Ham radio is all about wearing a Lifestyle mental
uniform, marching in ranks to the morse drumbeat of the 1930s,
and being ready, willing, able to "take over communications" when
all the commercial/professional infrastructure FAILS in an
emergency? That's the thoughts I see expressed in here.

By whom?

There can be no fun in the ham SERVICE.

Says who?

Subject: Why You Don't Like The ARRL
From: (Brian)
Date: 12/24/03 5:32 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Robeson K4CAP) wrote in message
...
Subject: Why You Don't Like The ARRL
From: (Brian)
Date: 12/23/03 4:38 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

And all the SK's out there who forgot to terminate their memberships.

Brain, do you think there's ANY "membership" organization that has a
100%,
real-time accounting of thier membership? I don't.

Steve, K4YZ

Now that I've lead you in a full circle, we're back to NCI's membership
roster.

I was never "AT" NCI's membership roster, Brain.

...And we are used to you going in circles. If it wasn't for the tail
you're chasing, how would you know which end was your head?

Steve, K4YZ

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

clicking on ARRL publications
and QST yields a table of contents of January 2004 issue. On
there is a link to a "Micro Keyer" (CW keyer) which is viewable,
but no other viewable link to more general amateur radio articles
such as making nice front panels for homebuilt equipment.

So?

This is
just another subtle bit of business on ARRL's continuing push for
morse code related over and above all other modes.

Not at all. It's just a sample. Other months there are different sample
articles.

ARRL may
take a "neutral" stance on morse code testing regulations but one
can only take away their code key from their cold, dead fingers...

Sounds like you want radio amateurs to stop using Morse code. Why is that?

In truth, a "Publishers Sworn Statement" is SOLELY for the
benefit of potential ADVERTISERS. QST subsists almost entirely
on the income of advertising to pay for printing, author compensation
(miniscule by comparison to other periodicals), "fulfillment"
(publishing-speak for subscriptions), and QST direct staff.

How do you know? Have you gone over their books?

Even if true, what's the problem? ARRL does a lot more than publish QST.

Note that
QST has used a heavier-weight glossy paper than most periodicals
(which costs more) but has gone to slightly lower-weight glossy paper.
Anyone can go through any issue, count column-inches, and
determine the issue's Real income within 20% or so just from QST's
rates (also on the web site, different page).

And your point is?

Advertising pays the bills at a periodical. Advertising revenue is
finite so all periodical publishers will condense and "tailor" the
Publisher's Sworn Statements as much as they can...so that
potential advertisers are convinced to pay them instead of any
competition. Since advertising budgets are finite, some periodicals
just don't get as much income...and some may have to quit when
there isn't enough income to pay bills.

You mean like ham radio and 73, both defunct?

There's bound to be someone who shows "exceptions" to the rule
that advertising pays the bills. I'm familiar with that. As one who
gets a number of trade periodicals (EDN, Electronic Design, RF
Design, Microwaves & RF, PET, etc.) entirely without any monies
from me ("controlled circulation" magazines), that's proof enough of
my statement. There are MORE "free" trade publications in the
USA than there are subscription-fee publications.

Show your work.

Members try to rationalize others' negative criticsm by using only one
or two of the triad as "justification."

You have nothing but negative criticism and insults, Len. You're playing a sort
of Zen game where you never say what something is or should be but only what it
isn't, or should not be. Why is that?

In truth, ARRL tries to be too
many things under one roof

What would you have them change besides their code test policy?

and that, if too inflexible, may be its
eventual undoing.

It's clear you'd be really happy if ARRL disappeared.

ARRL and QST have existed continuously since 1919. There is no larger amateur
radio organization on earth. At least 30 times the size of NCI....

You seem to think that amateur radio doesn't need a strong national
organization. Reality shows that such an organization - or more than one! -
*are* needed - otherwise, amateur radio would slowly be legislated out of
existence. You'd like that, wouldn't you, Len?

To give just one example - the BPL issue.

Since you have no intention of becoming a ham, Len, why doies any of this
matter to you?

"Len Over 21" wrote:

Dwight, with all due respect, I think
I know a bit about the periodicals
industry and Publisher's Sworn
Statements. :-)


Well, then by all means, you go at it. I'm not going to get into this
discussion beyond what I've already done, and I'm certainly not going to
write a detailed response to the long-winded message you wrote. ;-)


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
t...
KØHB wrote:

"Bill Sohl" wrote


BUT, his NCI membership doesn't tie NCI to Han's personal support
for an entry level license.

Are you saying that NCI does not reciprocate my support for their goals?
That would certainly be a strange sort of membership-organization.

Sorry Hans! Only elimination of the Test!

Essentually correct. NCI doesn't take positions on the wider
scope of testing and opinions held by any individual member.
Indeed, one could readily see where two members might have totally
opposite opinions on written testing.

And that is what bothers me about NCI.

Why that bothers anyone makes no sense to me. Indeed, we are
damned if we do, damn;ed if we don't. We formed as a "one issue"
organization and now some folks are bothered by that...strange,
truly strange.

But it is a great way to dodge responsibility! 8^)

Dodge responsibilities? So exactly what does that mean?
What specific "responsibility" is NCI dodging?
Did I miss some unstated responsibility of NCI and/or any
other ham club or organization?

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
t...
Bill Sohl wrote:

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

Bill Sohl wrote:

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message

snippage

Two questions...
1. What "other members" (I presume you mean Board Members), other
than W5YI, do NOT support retention of technical acumen?

They don't have to be Board members, Bill. And I don't have their
names
off the top of my head.

If you like, I can retract the "members" statement, and substitute
"member" or "prominent member". Although I think that's almost like
saying a person's argument is invalid because they made a typo.

Bottom line, without names, the statement is grossly misleading
as you apear to try and broaden your claim to NCI in general...
which is absolutely false.

Bottom line, I have never accused NCI of having any particular
opinion.

I wrote:

Instead, some members express "unofficial opinions that scare the
bejabbers out of me.

That's the point. "Unofficial opinions". That alone, regardless
of what you say, creates an impression that there is an "unofficial
'NCI' opinion". If a person has their own opinion about
something, that isn't "official" or "unofficial" by itself. Adding the
"unofficial opinion" label in talking about an NCI
member DOES create a different perception than simply
saying John Doe has an opinion that scares me.

I have a question. There is no doubt that NCI is a political
organization. So this is a fair question.

Why don't you ask a good conservative Republican what they think of the
new Govorner of California's stand on say, abortion, or say same sex
marriages? So while his opinion doesn't really have that much to do with
the national scene, therefore it isn't relevant to anything but himself,
I do know that there are plenty of the above mentioned conservatives
that don't think a whole lot of him or his opinion at all.

Who cares, so what? In any organization there will be a range
of opinions regarding issues. NCI was formed as and still is a ONE
issue organization. Why that fails to sink in to some folks still
amazes me. The ONE area of universal agreement amongst
NCI members is ending all code tests. If an NCI member does not
support that goal, then he or she should really consider dropping
NCI memebrship.

Back to now:

Who is broadening any claim? I even put unofficial opinions on my
sentence.

Your trying to pin me down on this is amusing, since the membership
rolls of NCI are a closely guarded secret. The only way we know is if
the member outs him or her self.

Then how can you even make the statement that some "members" have
opinions that scare you IF you can't even identify them.

I just identified two.

But neither of those people speak for NCI when offering
their opinions on non-code test issues. THAT is the
important aspect of my discussion here.

I don't like Han's entry level license requirement either. He's a
member.

BUT, his NCI membership doesn't tie NCI to Han's personal support
for an entry level license.

But he certainly serves as another data point. Why don't we go over
some stuff.

Hans is a data point as to Han's...not any position for
or against an entry level license by NCI.

You (apparently) don't support any change in anything except the
elimination of Element one.

Now you are making things up. What I support overs a wide
range of stuff. The distinction again is that if, for example, I
were to support an entry level test, it would be as Bill K2UNK,
and not as any official NCI position simply because I sit on the NCI
board. If I go back to your Republican
example above, if I support abortion and I am an NCI
member, that anti-abortion folks should be worried about
NCI members having pro-abortion opinions? Of couse
NOT, because the issue is NOT on the NCI agenda.

W5YI supports what to me seems to be a radical simplification and
*******ization of the ARS requirements.

And W5YI is free to expound his opinions. Has he ever done so
and tried to claim NCI supported his viewpoints. Answer: NO.

Hans has a plan that I generally don't like. I must say that he does
address the issue of needed change when element one disappears.

And Han's proposal is neither supported or opposed by
NCI.

So forgive me, but I think I can form an opinion and defend it.

Never said you aren't free to do so.

All I propose is strengthening the requirements of what exists now, and
otherwise leaving things intact. I would really encourage going into the
regulations and cleaning them up after the changover.

What changeover?

And yes, since NCI sees itself as the vanguard of change, I see NCI as
derelict in it's duties.

Pretty amusing. "Derilict" as determined by what
yardstick?

To just say "eliminate the Code test" really
isn't enough.

You are entitled to your opinion and I suspect, because
of that opinion, NCI won't expect your membership application
in the near future :-)

Cheers and Merry Christmas to all.

Bill K2UNK

Bill Sohl wrote:

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
t...

KØHB wrote:


"Bill Sohl" wrote



BUT, his NCI membership doesn't tie NCI to Han's personal support
for an entry level license.

Are you saying that NCI does not reciprocate my support for their goals?
That would certainly be a strange sort of membership-organization.

Sorry Hans! Only elimination of the Test!


Essentually correct. NCI doesn't take positions on the wider
scope of testing and opinions held by any individual member.
Indeed, one could readily see where two members might have totally
opposite opinions on written testing.


And that is what bothers me about NCI.


Why that bothers anyone makes no sense to me. Indeed, we are
damned if we do, damn;ed if we don't. We formed as a "one issue"
organization and now some folks are bothered by that...strange,
truly strange.

Well, I'm sorry about it Bill, but that is how it works. Spoils of success.

In the world of politics, there is no such thing as a one issue
organization. When agitating for the addition or removal of something,
there must be some kind of plan for afterward. If there is no plan, then
one of two things happened. Either there was an immense amount of
naivety, or a concept of "no plan for the aftermath" was made".

I'm bothered by it now because I'm new to the ARS and didn't even know
about NCI in it's early years. I would have taken NCI members to task if
I was a ham then.

But it is a great way to dodge responsibility! 8^)


Dodge responsibilities? So exactly what does that mean?
What specific "responsibility" is NCI dodging?
Did I miss some unstated responsibility of NCI and/or any
other ham club or organization?

Yes you did miss it, IMO! What other Morse code pro/con advocacy groups
are there? NCI is the one standing around when the change happened, it
happened their way, and now all we hear is some people's personal
beliefs when they should be at least putting together a plan for the
aftermath of the ARS, post Element one. The two I have seen I'm not
overwhelmed with.

So I will be yapping about what I percieve to be a *grave* error in
omission.

- Mike KB3EIA -