In article , "Dr. Daffodil
Swain" writes:

Did you become a section director?

There's no such position. The ARRL has Section Managers, Division Directors and
Vice Directors.

Directors and Vice Directors are elected by the membership. And it is they who
set ARRL policy. They're from all over the country, not just Newington.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"I'm the ARRL"

N2EY wrote:

In article , "Dr. Daffodil
Swain" writes:


Did you become a section director?


There's no such position. The ARRL has Section Managers, Division Directors and
Vice Directors.

So the answer must be "no"! 8^)



Directors and Vice Directors are elected by the membership. And it is they who
set ARRL policy. They're from all over the country, not just Newington.

Yeah, but you guys know how to spoil a rant!

- Mike KB3EIA -

On 14 Dec 2003 17:37:43 GMT, N2EY wrote:

There's no such position. The ARRL has Section Managers, Division
Directors and Vice Directors.

Directors and Vice Directors are elected by the membership. And it is
they who set ARRL policy. They're from all over the country, not just
Newington.

The Section Managers are also elected by the membership of the
Section. In fact, in the Oregon Section we elected one about a year
or so ago and we didn't like what he was doing so we held a recall
election and out he went.

The system works.

In the several years when I was active in Pacific Division politics,
I became aware that there are Division Directors who challenge what
some folks refer to as the "Codfish Curtain". (Right, Hans ??). When
enough of them prevail, policy changes.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane
ARRL Paid-Up Life Member

Len Over 21 wrote:


My comment is in that database. Is yours?

Yes it is.

- Mike KB3EIA -

(Len Over 21) wrote in message ...
In article , Dave Heil
writes:

Three-fourths of all U.S. radio amateurs are NOT members.

Think on that, Klunk.

I've thought about it.

Made your head hurt?

Poor baby.

One quarter of U.S. radio amateurs ARE members.

A MINORITY.

You still don't understand the difference between "minority" and
"majority," do you?

Of this minority, the ARRL polled their little group in the mid-late
nineties, and came away with "no clear mandate." An even spilt within
the ranks of the true believers? So even at the time, something was
wearing away at the propaganda machine. I wonder what's happened
since then?

Now you've got hams kicking around the idea of a two license structure
w/o Morse Code for HF access.

On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 02:44:02 GMT, Dave Heil wrote:

You claim to know what is best for amateur radio. Your comments above
do not address morse testing; they address morse USE. What is it to
you, a fellow with no stake at all in amateur radio, if radio amateurs
continue to use morse?

Not only that, at a recent meeting, the ITU-T (Telecommunications
Group, which defines coding) put forth a definition for a _new_
character in International Morse - the "at" sign (@). It's
.__._. (_AC_).

So much for "Morse is dead".

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane
(Who is in favor of deleting the Morse
test but continuing the use of Morse)

In article ,
(Brian) writes:

(Len Over 21) wrote in message
...
In article , Dave Heil

writes:

Three-fourths of all U.S. radio amateurs are NOT members.

Think on that, Klunk.

I've thought about it.

Made your head hurt?

Poor baby.

One quarter of U.S. radio amateurs ARE members.

A MINORITY.

You still don't understand the difference between "minority" and
"majority," do you?

Of this minority, the ARRL polled their little group in the mid-late
nineties, and came away with "no clear mandate." An even spilt within
the ranks of the true believers? So even at the time, something was
wearing away at the propaganda machine. I wonder what's happened
since then?

As I see it the schism is from the general attitude of long-timers
evolving into two main groupings: Those that mightily resist change
and those who can accept change.

The first group wants a relatively inflexible hobby activity, generally
frozen at the standards and practices of the time when they first
became acquainted with amateur radio (usually their first license).
They want the hobby to remain relatively stable, something they
can identify with, something familiar and comforting. They want to
be first among their equals ("primus inter pares"). Such feel secure
only with the old familiar things. They take the fraternal order view
of amateur radio and thus build up a mystique amongst themselves
far greater than reality. Those favor morse code because the
fraternal order elders favored morse code when they were first into
amateur radio.

The second group is accepting of change and they are not afraid of
it (although the constant advancement of all electronics does cause
some irritation). They are more interested in communicating and the
communication arts, are willing to try out new things. They have a
more realistic view of amateur radio as an avocational activity and
don't have it become their lifestyle. They don't mind the "fraternal
order" aspect (some enjoy that) but, at the same time, they are
into trying out new things of many kinds. Their emphasis is on
communicating, not the mode of communication.

The first group appears to have been in control of the League since
the beginnings of that fraternal order as a local club. Such is a
positive-feedback condition which supports the generally conservative-
traditionalist fraternal brotherhood that is heavy into mystique. They
cannot abide the second group because they are resistant to
change. The end result is the schism kept wide by the first group.

The first group is secure and comfortable in familiar surroundings
(and familiar mystique). If something was good for their Daddy and
Grand-Daddy, then by damn it is good for them. Change is
anathema because that is not familiar and makes them insecure.
A side effect of that behavior is the pretense they are still as young
as when they were first licensed long ago...or that they want to be
that young again.

The upper echelons of the League have, by public statements and
Board meetings, indicated that they have a majority of the first
group. Hence the League remained adamant in supporting the
morse code test requirement of S25.5 long after the IARU came out
for revision. The upper echelons did the appeasement bit about a
year prior to WRC-03 by taking the Neutral stand on the code test.

A neutral stand is a nice, easy cop-out in public. It takes no sides
and thus doesn't cause as much controversy as taking one side or
the other. Such is "comfortable." It also creates more mystique
by the pretense that the upper echelons are "considering more
important matters (than the code test)." Since most of the League
membership has already passed a morse code test, it seems (to
the upper ranks) that the code test is "unimportant."

All of the above is understandable...except that change WILL
happen to the upper ranks whether or not they like it. League
membership hasn't been above the one-quarter mark for a long
time and the League NEEDS more members to survive whether
the U.S. amateur radio license totals increase or decrease. League
leadership needs to adapt to new times...denial of reality might be
okay for a few more years but such stalling tactics will only foment
a much larger event in the future.


Now you've got hams kicking around the idea of a two license structure
w/o Morse Code for HF access.

Unthinkable! :-)

"Morse code has always been in ham radio and it always will be!"

"The code test as always been in ham radio licensing and that's
how it must remain!"

"Nobody should be on HF unless they are licensed with a morse
code test!"

Brian, those aren't verbatim quotes but the gist of what they are
have been written by many of the beligerant "first-group" hams.

It should be clear that there will never be any "consensus" on
code testing as long as such beligerance remains rooted among
the self-styled elite morsemen of U.S. amateur radio.

LHA

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

Len Over 21 wrote:

My comment is in that database. Is yours?

Yes it is.

On NOI 03-104, 23 Jun 03...good on you.

Now...how about on the 14 petitions?

LHA

"Dave Heil" wrote in message
...
Len Over 21 wrote:
[snip]
Three-fourths of all licensed U.S. radio amateurs "took that view"
and are NOT members.

You have no idea of the views held by those radio amateurs who are or
are not members of the ARRL, Leonard. You aren't a player from within
or without.


And there are simply a lot of people who are not joiners. What percent of
the seniors belong to AARP? What percent of gun owners belong to the NRA.
With 1/4 or so of the licensed amateurs belonging to ARRL, it would not be
surprising to if the ARRL were to rank quite high on the list of target
group people actually belonging to the organization.

[snip]
Three-fourths of all U.S. radio amateurs are NOT members.

Think on that, Klunk.

I've thought about it. One quarter of U.S. radio amateurs ARE members.
You are not in either camp.

Dave K8MN

It would be interesting to compare the ARRL membership percentage to groups
like AARP and NRA.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Phil Kane" wrote in message . net...
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 02:44:02 GMT, Dave Heil wrote:

You claim to know what is best for amateur radio. Your comments above
do not address morse testing; they address morse USE. What is it to
you, a fellow with no stake at all in amateur radio, if radio amateurs
continue to use morse?

Not only that, at a recent meeting, the ITU-T (Telecommunications
Group, which defines coding) put forth a definition for a _new_
character in International Morse - the "at" sign (@). It's
.__._. (_AC_).

So much for "Morse is dead".

Hopefully they decided to define all the other characters and set the
timing for a dot, a dash, an intercharacter space, and an interword
space.

So much for, "Morse is alive."