N2EY wrote:

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

In article , Dave Heil
writes:

Len Over 21 wrote:

Problem is that Believers are in the minority...but they cannot ever
see that or they are so set that what they think is the absolute
"they know what is best."

But, Len, you think you know what is best for amateur radio and you
aren't even involved. You're pretty much of a minority.

I've not claimed to "know what is best for amateur radio."

That's YOUR claim.

That isn't correct, Leonard.

Dave,

A bit of clarification.

Mr. Anderson has repeatedly expounded his views on a wide range of
topics both here and in voluminous, repetitive comments to the FCC.
But I don't recall him ever claiming that they were "what is best for
amateur radio" or that he even knows "what is best for amateur radio."

Jim, I have to disagree. The very fact that Len submitted his ideas on
morse testing and a minimum age for amateur radio licensing to the
Commission demonstrates that he believes that he knows what is best for
amateur radio, in which he has never been a participant.

Leonard has, on occasion, tried to have it both ways. He has told us
that he was going for an "Extra right out of the box" and, in a
turnabout, that he really isn't interested in obtaining an amateur radio
license. He has written of his decades-long interest but he has never
even attempted to obtain even a code free ticket.

Truth is, when I'm chasing S92SS on 160, when I'm checking into the WV
Fone Net or when I'm reading the latest QST, I don't give Leonard a
thought. He wasn't a part of amateur radio's past, isn't part of its
present and, I'm guessing, won't be part of its future.

Dave K8MN

In article , Dave Heil
writes:

N2EY wrote:

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

In article , Dave Heil

writes:

Len Over 21 wrote:

Problem is that Believers are in the minority...but they cannot
ever
see that or they are so set that what they think is the absolute
"they know what is best."

But, Len, you think you know what is best for amateur radio and you
aren't even involved. You're pretty much of a minority.

I've not claimed to "know what is best for amateur radio."

That's YOUR claim.

That isn't correct, Leonard.

Dave,

A bit of clarification.

Mr. Anderson has repeatedly expounded his views on a wide range of
topics both here and in voluminous, repetitive comments to the FCC.
But I don't recall him ever claiming that they were "what is best for
amateur radio" or that he even knows "what is best for amateur radio."

Jim, I have to disagree. The very fact that Len submitted his ideas on
morse testing and a minimum age for amateur radio licensing to the
Commission demonstrates that he believes that he knows what is best for
amateur radio, in which he has never been a participant.

Let me state it another way.

Suppose someone thought that "what was best for amateur radio" was for the
service as we know it to die out. Do you think they'd actually come right out
and say that?

Leonard has, on occasion, tried to have it both ways.

Not "on occasion". Frequently.

He has told us
that he was going for an "Extra right out of the box" and, in a
turnabout, that he really isn't interested in obtaining an amateur radio
license.

Of course! Those darn new question pools.....!

Do you really think anything he writes here is to be taken seriously? Or, for
that matter, anything he writes?

He has written of his decades-long interest but he has never
even attempted to obtain even a code free ticket.

Because radio isn't his interest or his hobby. His hobby is wasting time - your
time.

Truth is, when I'm chasing S92SS on 160, when I'm checking into the WV
Fone Net or when I'm reading the latest QST, I don't give Leonard a
thought.

Nor do I.

Ever read "The Fountainhead" by Ayn Rand? There's a great little scene where
the hero (Howard Roark, a talented architect) meets his nemesis (Ellsworth
Toohey, an architectural critic whose only talent is clever wordsmithing that
denigrates others' accomplishments . Toohey is the kind of fellow who would
refer to others as "Nursie", "Kolonel Klunk" and "Rev. Jim"..). Toohey wants to
destroy Roark, and tries all sorts of tricks to ruin him. Toohey has never been
an architect - he's not involved - but through various tricks he's manuevered
himself into being a commentator on architecture.

They meet when Roark goes to see a building which he (Roark) had designed, but
which Toohey had caused to be modified horribly - at Roark's expense. Toohey
talks a lot and finally asks Roark what he thinks of him.

Roark replies "But I don't think of you"

Sound familiar?

He wasn't a part of amateur radio's past, isn't part of its
present and, I'm guessing, won't be part of its future.

Of course not! That isn't his goal.

Remember the profile? Have you seen any behavior that doesn't match that
profile?

73 de Jim, N2EY

(N2EY) wrote in message . com...


Ah, there's where your logic fails, Dave. You're working on a false
premise.

You're *assuming* that everyone who has an opinion on amateur radio
policy issues is interested in amateur radio having the best possible
future. And in most cases that's true - but not when Mr. Anderson is
involved. His behavior here, and his comments to FCC, indicate that
he's *not* interested in what's best for amateur radio. He's just
interested in stirring up division, discord and hostility between
amateurs, diverting them from other issues, and denying amateur
traditions and contributions to society and the radio art.

Inventive Licensing comes to mind as the big divider.

Suppose someone really hated amateur radio and wanted to damage it as
much as possible without being obvious about what they were doing.

Wouldn't one way to do that be to try to maximize internal bickering
and arguing among hams, thereby diverting them from useful discussion?

One could propose to the FCC a licensing structure with multiple
levels, multiple exams, and multiple privelege slices and power
levels.

In article ,
(Brian) writes:

(N2EY) wrote in message
.com...

Ah, there's where your logic fails, Dave. You're working on a false
premise.

You're *assuming* that everyone who has an opinion on amateur radio
policy issues is interested in amateur radio having the best possible
future. And in most cases that's true - but not when Mr. Anderson is
involved. His behavior here, and his comments to FCC, indicate that
he's *not* interested in what's best for amateur radio. He's just
interested in stirring up division, discord and hostility between
amateurs, diverting them from other issues, and denying amateur
traditions and contributions to society and the radio art.

Inventive Licensing comes to mind as the big divider.

:-)


Suppose someone really hated amateur radio and wanted to damage it as
much as possible without being obvious about what they were doing.

Wouldn't one way to do that be to try to maximize internal bickering
and arguing among hams, thereby diverting them from useful discussion?

One could propose to the FCC a licensing structure with multiple
levels, multiple exams, and multiple privelege slices and power
levels.

Another way is to have everyone believe in the same thing...as is
published every month in a certain membership magazine.

As a single "authoritative voice," a New England membership
group DEFINES everything in amateurism for all amateurs. No
bickering, no dissension, no arguing. All do as They say.
No problems. Everyone happy in Nirvana.

All who oppose the above shall be villified, burned at the stake,
and denounced as not Believing in the True Way.

Halleluya. Amen.

LHA

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

In article ,
(Brian) writes:

(N2EY) wrote in message
e.com...

Ah, there's where your logic fails, Dave. You're working on a false
premise.

You're *assuming* that everyone who has an opinion on amateur radio
policy issues is interested in amateur radio having the best possible
future. And in most cases that's true - but not when Mr. Anderson is
involved. His behavior here, and his comments to FCC, indicate that
he's *not* interested in what's best for amateur radio. He's just
interested in stirring up division, discord and hostility between
amateurs, diverting them from other issues, and denying amateur
traditions and contributions to society and the radio art.

Inventive Licensing comes to mind as the big divider.

:-)

;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-)
;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-)
;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-)
;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-)
;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-)

Suppose someone really hated amateur radio and wanted to damage it as
much as possible without being obvious about what they were doing.

Wouldn't one way to do that be to try to maximize internal bickering
and arguing among hams, thereby diverting them from useful discussion?

One could propose to the FCC a licensing structure with multiple
levels, multiple exams, and multiple privelege slices and power
levels.

Another way is to have everyone believe in the same thing...as is
published every month in a certain membership magazine.

What magazine is that, Ellsworth...err, Leonard?

As a single "authoritative voice," a New England membership
group DEFINES everything in amateurism for all amateurs. No
bickering, no dissension, no arguing. All do as They say.
No problems. Everyone happy in Nirvana.

Which group and which magazine? ham radio and 73 magazines were New England
based, but they're both defunct.

Your description of a membership organization that does not tolerate dissent
sounds exactly like NoCode International. Right in their bylaws it says that
any member who publicly disagrees with their stated position on code testing is
subject to expulsion. They also require that all members agree to their prime
directive goal as a condition of membership. No one who disagrees with their
core policy can be a member of NoCode International.

I'm not saying that's right or wrong, just stating facts.

All who oppose the above shall be villified, burned at the stake,
and denounced as not Believing in the True Way.

Now, Ells err, Len, why are you bashing NCI? All they'll do to someone who
disagrees is rescind their membership. Since they state all that in their
bylaws (which even I, a nonmember, have seen) what's your problem?

To my knowledge, such membership withdrawal has never been necessary. A very
few members have asked to be removed from the membership list because they no
longer agreed. Otherwise, the loyalty oath membership conditions have served
NCI quite well, eliminating up front anyone who disagrees.

N2EY wrote:

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:


In article ,
(Brian) writes:


(N2EY) wrote in message
le.com...


Ah, there's where your logic fails, Dave. You're working on a false
premise.

You're *assuming* that everyone who has an opinion on amateur radio
policy issues is interested in amateur radio having the best possible
future. And in most cases that's true - but not when Mr. Anderson is
involved. His behavior here, and his comments to FCC, indicate that
he's *not* interested in what's best for amateur radio. He's just
interested in stirring up division, discord and hostility between
amateurs, diverting them from other issues, and denying amateur
traditions and contributions to society and the radio art.

Inventive Licensing comes to mind as the big divider.

:-)


;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-)
;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-)
;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-)
;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-)
;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-)

Suppose someone really hated amateur radio and wanted to damage it as
much as possible without being obvious about what they were doing.

Wouldn't one way to do that be to try to maximize internal bickering
and arguing among hams, thereby diverting them from useful discussion?

One could propose to the FCC a licensing structure with multiple
levels, multiple exams, and multiple privelege slices and power
levels.

Another way is to have everyone believe in the same thing...as is
published every month in a certain membership magazine.


What magazine is that, Ellsworth...err, Leonard?

As a single "authoritative voice," a New England membership
group DEFINES everything in amateurism for all amateurs. No
bickering, no dissension, no arguing. All do as They say.
No problems. Everyone happy in Nirvana.


Which group and which magazine? ham radio and 73 magazines were New England
based, but they're both defunct.

Your description of a membership organization that does not tolerate dissent
sounds exactly like NoCode International. Right in their bylaws it says that
any member who publicly disagrees with their stated position on code testing is
subject to expulsion. They also require that all members agree to their prime
directive goal as a condition of membership. No one who disagrees with their
core policy can be a member of NoCode International.

I'm not saying that's right or wrong, just stating facts.

And now some puzzle pieces fit together. I can now reconcile Carl's
vision of how leaders are supposed to lead and his organization. Strong
leadership, independent from member opinion, and if you don't like it,
you're out.

Umm, no thanks.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Brian wrote:

(N2EY) wrote in message . com...

You're *assuming* that everyone who has an opinion on amateur radio
policy issues is interested in amateur radio having the best possible
future. And in most cases that's true - but not when Mr. Anderson is
involved. His behavior here, and his comments to FCC, indicate that
he's *not* interested in what's best for amateur radio. He's just
interested in stirring up division, discord and hostility between
amateurs, diverting them from other issues, and denying amateur
traditions and contributions to society and the radio art.

Inventive Licensing comes to mind as the big divider.

You're probably right. Everyone who holds an amateur ticket likely had
some incentive. Len had none.

Dave K8MN

In article , Dave Heil
writes:

You're probably right. Everyone who holds an amateur ticket likely had
some incentive. Len had none.

The ONLY way to have incentive is to get a ham license.

The radio god has spoken.

Halleluja and Amen.

LHA

Len Over 21 wrote:

In article , Dave Heil
writes:

You're probably right. Everyone who holds an amateur ticket likely had
some incentive. Len had none.

The ONLY way to have incentive is to get a ham license.

The radio god has spoken.

No gods needed. Simple observation will show that someone who proclaims
a decades-long interest in amateur radio and who has never bothered to
attempt even the easiest license exam has no incentive to obtain an
amateur radio license. See "intertia".

It won't bother me if you never obtain an amateur radio license, Len.
Just don't feign interest and then attempt to tell me how you think
amateur radio should be regulated.

Dave K8MN

Dave Heil wrote in message ...
Brian wrote:

(N2EY) wrote in message . com...

You're *assuming* that everyone who has an opinion on amateur radio
policy issues is interested in amateur radio having the best possible
future. And in most cases that's true - but not when Mr. Anderson is
involved. His behavior here, and his comments to FCC, indicate that
he's *not* interested in what's best for amateur radio. He's just
interested in stirring up division, discord and hostility between
amateurs, diverting them from other issues, and denying amateur
traditions and contributions to society and the radio art.

Inventive Licensing comes to mind as the big divider.

You're probably right. Everyone who holds an amateur ticket likely had
some incentive. Len had none.

Dave K8MN

Of course I'm right! ;^)

Len, like any Americans who've shown an interest in the ARS, have a
disincentive. It is the Morse requirement for HF access.