Subject: Why You Don't Like The ARRL
From: (Brian)
Date: 12/25/03 5:01 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

Sounds like what we've inherited today. Let's do something rational instead.

It will be interesting to see what YOU call "rational".

Steve, K4YZ

In article ,
says...
Not in the Mid-Michigan area.....can't find any radio related magazine
anymore! (except for something like Popular Electronics)

Heard some vicious rumor about the anti-radio relay league pulling magazines
from "shelf sales" recently but I cannot confirm this.


Ryan KC8PMX
--
"The Pope has issued a proclamation on Michael Jackson. If he hears any
more allegations about little boys, the Pope says he'll have no choice but
to make him a priest."


"JJ" wrote in message
...
JEP wrote:


2) Can't separate QST from membership

Check your local newstand or magazine rack in stores, many carry QST.
You can purchase it without membership, or check you local library, they
may carry it and you can read it for free.





Popular Communications (Never met a radio they didn't like)
CQ
QST
Monitoring Times

These should be easily found at any decent newstand. Don't you have any
bookstores there??

Borders?
BDalton?

BDK

"Steve Robeson K4CAP" wrote

those who want something for nothing

Ah, yes, when they can't make a reasoned argument they trot out the old
"something for nothing" mantra.

Sorry, but that just doesn't stand up in the light of day, Steve. My plan,
for example, calls for an examination similar to the current Extra written
for full privileges, yet avoids building a new set of Amateur Radio ghettos
like Jim's 1968-leftover plan would do. It also avoids 'free upgrades'
which we'll likely see proposed by a prominent CT radio club.

Hans

Len Over 21 wrote:

In article , Dave Heil
writes:

Brian wrote:

Dave Heil wrote in message
...
Len Over 21 wrote:

In article , Dave Heil

writes:

Brian wrote:

Steve, I think it has to do with the disincentive of Morse Code
testing. You might want to check with Len on this.

You'll pardon our confusion. You've been acting as Len's
representative
for a few posts now in speaking of his motivations or lack thereof. I
wasn't aware that you'd turned the controls over to him.

Brian Burke is not my "representative" nor am I his.

You'll likely want to straighten the lad out then, Leonard. He has been
speaking for you of late.

We just happen to agree that the Morse Exam has to go and that the ARS
is divided between folks who can accept change, and those who cannot.

Perhaps Len's mistaken views can be excused.

"Mistaken views?!?" :-)

Yes, mistaken views.

... You, on the other hand, should know better.

Why do you say that?

....because, unlike you, he has an amateur radio license and has held it
for some time.

Saying that as you do implies that you are a god of amateur radio
who has ALL the answers. You don't.

You've waffled on this issue for some time. In the past, you've held
that I am a god of amateur radio. In frequent reversals, you've stated
that I am not. I think I'll wait until the several of you inside the
Leonard Anderson cranium come to an agreement.

It is not my Life's Ambition to immortalize morse code as the
epitome of amateurism in an avocational radio activity.

I'll mark that down as yet another of things we know are not your life's
ambition. It'll be listed right under "amateur radio license".

I think working Frenchmen out of band otta be #2.

Okay, Brian, I'll do as you've requested.

THINGS WHICH ARE NOT LEONARD ANDERSON'S LIFE'S AMBITION

1. It is not my life's ambition to obtain an amateur radio license.

Explain to me why this is so "necessary," high holy god of ham.

I didn't write that it was necessary. Pay attention.

2. It is not my life's ambition to work Frenchmen out of band.

I'm not keen to work them IN band.

Relax. You won't have to worry about working them at all.

Why is that so necessary, high holy god of ham?

I didn't write that it was necessary. Pay attention.

3. It is not my Life's Ambition to immortalize morse code as the
epitome of amateurism in an avocational radio activity.

But it IS YOURS, right, high holy god of ham?

The list isn't about me, Len. It is about you. Pay attention.

I can deal with that.

You can't deal a deck of cards...much less deal with debate on
issues...you always switch to insulting each and every person
who disagrees with your opinions.

Did your face redden as you typed those words? C'mon, fess up.

Now that all the Techs have been chased off of VHF, where do you
'spect them to go?

Really? The Techs have been chased from VHF? When and how did this
transpire? How would it keep Leonard from obtaining a code-free
license?

Why must I obtain a "code-free license?"

You don't have to do anything. Let inertia be your guide. Pay
attention.

Why can't it be a "coded" license?

It can, Len. First you'd have to overcome inertia. Pay attention.

I've had a code-free license since 1956.

We're discussing amateur radio, Len. Pay attention.

Dave K8MN

"KØHB" wrote in message link.net...
"Steve Robeson K4CAP" wrote

those who want something for nothing

Ah, yes, when they can't make a reasoned argument they trot out the old
"something for nothing" mantra.

Sorry, but that just doesn't stand up in the light of day, Steve. My plan,
for example, calls for an examination similar to the current Extra written
for full privileges, yet avoids building a new set of Amateur Radio ghettos
like Jim's 1968-leftover plan would do. It also avoids 'free upgrades'
which we'll likely see proposed by a prominent CT radio club.

Hans

Hans, if we're going to have to eat leftowvers, could we at least warm them up?

The fat is all congealed on this one.

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

The "plan" is simple. There is NO need to replace code testing
with anything else. That is and always has been the NCI objective.
Anyone (NCI member or otherwise) that wants to pursue
other test changes (written made harder, easier, entrylevel,
etc..) are free to pursue such aims independent of the NCI
banner. As Jim (N2EY) can attest to, I have made several
suggestions on imprving testing to the VEC, but that was and
still is seperate from the NCI "plan."

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.

NCI isn't really that old. Less than 10 years if my memory
serves me correctly.

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.

Well I guess NCI will just have to live with your
disappointment. See again the "plan" above.

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

Its a free country, yap away.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

In article , says...
K1MAN has done more good for ham radio in one year
than the ARRL has done in its entire life!

You've got to be kidding, right?

--

-- //Steve//

Steve Silverwood, KB6OJS
Fountain Valley, CA
Email:

Subject: Why You Don't Like The ARRL
From: "KØHB"
Date: 12/26/03 8:00 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id: . net

"Steve Robeson K4CAP" wrote

those who want something for nothing

Ah, yes, when they can't make a reasoned argument they trot out the old
"something for nothing" mantra.

Ah, yes...the "if they can't argue the argument, make fun of it" mantra.

Sorry, but that just doesn't stand up in the light of day, Steve.

Sure it does, Hans. The present system was set up in such a way as to
encourage licensees to pursue a program of self study.

The alternatives I have seen here lately suggest that potential new
licensees are either idiots for whom we must dilute the test to it's least
common denominator, or that we must hang a seriously big carrot out in front to
get them to get involved. THAT doesn't stand up in the light of day, Hans.

The current licensing strucure has already PROVEN that the tests are
reasonable (when the material is sequestered) and that it provides for a
structured occupancy of the bands.

There was no "ghettos" from Incentive Licensing, Hans. Yes, there were
hundreds of disenfranchised Amateurs who were, in fact, cheated out of
something they had already been using. That was indeed unfair to say the very
least.

As for "free upgrades", the FCC already unleased THAT genie with thier
last round of "restructuring" with no help at all from the ARRL.

73

Steve, K4YZ

Subject: Why You Don't Like The ARRL
From: (Brian)
Date: 12/26/03 3:01 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

How many amateur radio services do we really need? How many do you
really want?

One radio service with a TIERED license structure, Brain.

Obviously you do not concur with the FCC's "Basis and Purpose" of the
Amateur Radio Service, espeically those that establish the service as one of
"self-training".

A "single license" concept does not support that premise, Brain. A tiered
one does.

Was that too difficult for you?

Steve, K4YZ