"Brian" wrote in message
om...
Mike Coslo wrote in message
...


One of the greatest rules of parliamentary procedure, and a real
cornerstone of representative democracy in gneral is that even though
the majority rules, the minority is allowed to have it's say.

I think waaaaaayyyy too many people these days seem to have forgotten
that. The minority must have it's say.

Dee, I think you are taking a wrong tack on this one. Brian needs his
say, and should not be forced to be a person at a high level of power in
an institution to have his opinion.

Not everyone wants to be active or even *can* be active in an
organization. There are only so many leadership positions.

Mike, thanks for your comments. Its refreshing to hear that I don't
have to carry the weight of the ARS on my back, and that my personal
involvement in the national club, though significant, is not an
absolute requirement to achieve change. I really don't think the
"minority" that I belong to is much smaller than the other minority
that claims to speak for all amateur radio.

Notice the FCC comments during the NPRM with respect to the code.
Notice the current debate about the number of license classes
necessary to keep the ARS vibrant and healthy.

There is no need for me to be a subversive within that other minority
group for which I have supported and paid annual dues since 1986.
There is no need for a hostile takeover. Hainey is not my president.
The FCC has solicited my comments, and I gave them.

I think Dee's demands are extreme.

You are expecting changes out of all proportion to the effort that you are
putting into it and you think my opinions are extreme??

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee D. Flint wrote:

"Brian" wrote in message
om...

Mike Coslo wrote in message

...

One of the greatest rules of parliamentary procedure, and a real
cornerstone of representative democracy in gneral is that even though
the majority rules, the minority is allowed to have it's say.

I think waaaaaayyyy too many people these days seem to have forgotten
that. The minority must have it's say.

Dee, I think you are taking a wrong tack on this one. Brian needs his
say, and should not be forced to be a person at a high level of power in
an institution to have his opinion.

Not everyone wants to be active or even *can* be active in an
organization. There are only so many leadership positions.

Mike, thanks for your comments. Its refreshing to hear that I don't
have to carry the weight of the ARS on my back, and that my personal
involvement in the national club, though significant, is not an
absolute requirement to achieve change. I really don't think the
"minority" that I belong to is much smaller than the other minority
that claims to speak for all amateur radio.

Notice the FCC comments during the NPRM with respect to the code.
Notice the current debate about the number of license classes
necessary to keep the ARS vibrant and healthy.

There is no need for me to be a subversive within that other minority
group for which I have supported and paid annual dues since 1986.
There is no need for a hostile takeover. Hainey is not my president.
The FCC has solicited my comments, and I gave them.

I think Dee's demands are extreme.


You are expecting changes out of all proportion to the effort that you are
putting into it and you think my opinions are extreme??

I'm not so sure he is, Dee. I see a person that disagrees with some of
what the ARRL is doing, yet still supports the basic objective. I mean
if he's been a member since 86, that counts for something.

Kind of like how I am with politics. The Dems are in shambles, and the
Repubs are waaaaaayyyyy too liberal any more with their way out of line
deficit spending.

But I still vote, and try to pick the least awful candidate.

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
t...
Dee D. Flint wrote:

You are expecting changes out of all proportion to the effort that you
are
putting into it and you think my opinions are extreme??

I'm not so sure he is, Dee. I see a person that disagrees with some of
what the ARRL is doing, yet still supports the basic objective. I mean
if he's been a member since 86, that counts for something.

Kind of like how I am with politics. The Dems are in shambles, and the
Repubs are waaaaaayyyyy too liberal any more with their way out of line
deficit spending.

But I still vote, and try to pick the least awful candidate.


Which is fine. But if you want something better than what the least awful
candidate will provide, what do you do? If the majority of your party
disagrees with you on some points, what do you do? Do you expect them to
change just because you want them to or because you have been a member for
nearly 20 years? It isn't going to happen. If you want change, then you
roll up your sleeves and go to work on it; not sit and complain, not "take
your marbles and go home." The latter two approaches never work.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee D. Flint wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
t...

Dee D. Flint wrote:


You are expecting changes out of all proportion to the effort that you

are

putting into it and you think my opinions are extreme??

I'm not so sure he is, Dee. I see a person that disagrees with some of
what the ARRL is doing, yet still supports the basic objective. I mean
if he's been a member since 86, that counts for something.

Kind of like how I am with politics. The Dems are in shambles, and the
Repubs are waaaaaayyyyy too liberal any more with their way out of line
deficit spending.

But I still vote, and try to pick the least awful candidate.



Which is fine. But if you want something better than what the least awful
candidate will provide, what do you do? If the majority of your party
disagrees with you on some points, what do you do? Do you expect them to
change just because you want them to or because you have been a member for
nearly 20 years? It isn't going to happen. If you want change, then you
roll up your sleeves and go to work on it; not sit and complain, not "take
your marbles and go home." The latter two approaches never work.

I vote! That's really about all I can do. And when enough people
believe what I do, then things may change.

Lets say I think that the deficit is too high. Who do I vote for? Who
speaks for me? Right now, I don't think anyone does, but I'll vote for
anyone who will.

But you seem to be saying that in order to have an opinion and express
it, I have to run for office. I wonder what office is high enough to
have an opinion? local tax collector or commisioner? Maybe they would be
allowed to have an opinion and express it on local issues. In order to
have an opinion and express it, I would have to be a Senator or a member
of the House. I suppose that the State versions of thes would have their
opinions dissappear when an issue goes to the Federal level.

Seriously your approach sounds like: "Don't you worry your little head
about anything, we have everything taken care of thankyouverymuch. And
when we want your opinion, we'll tell you what it is.

- Mike KB3EIA -

In article om, "Dee D.
Flint" writes:

I think Dee's demands are extreme.

You are expecting changes out of all proportion to the effort that you are
putting into it and you think my opinions are extreme??

Extremist to the point of acting like an evangelical believer in the
nobility, glory, and efficacy of the League. [they are without
reproach]

Is that enough for you, Dee?

LHA

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message igy.com...
"Brian" wrote in message
om...


I think Dee's demands are extreme.

You are expecting changes out of all proportion to the effort that you are
putting into it and you think my opinions are extreme??

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Yes, yes. Let them eat cake says Dee Marie.

You don't seem to recognize that the desire to modernize the ARS has a
groundswell of support. 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...

"Brian" wrote in message
om...
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
igy.com...
"Brian" wrote in message
om...


I think Dee's demands are extreme.

You are expecting changes out of all proportion to the effort that you
are
putting into it and you think my opinions are extreme??

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Yes, yes. Let them eat cake says Dee Marie.

You don't seem to recognize that the desire to modernize the ARS has a
groundswell of support. 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...

So how do you propose that change occur? What is your plan? Show me
changes that are needed and an effective plan to get there. So far all you
have done is bash the ARRL without presenting any alternative.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

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.

"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

"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.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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