(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 -

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

N2EY wrote:

In article ,

(Len Over 21) writes:



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.

Jimmie isn't stating any "facts." He is simply manufacturing an
argument for the sake of something to argue about. SOP for Jimmie.
[he seems to need something, anything, to argue about every day]

No Code International is most of all a political special interest group.
It asks for no dues, does not demand a license of any kind in order
to belong.

Unlike the ARRL...which IS a dues-asking, amateur license required,
membership organization and political special interest group and a
publishing business, NCI does not pretend to represent "all" amateurs.

ARRL pretends to "represent all amateurs" yet they still haven't
gotten close to a majority of all licensed U.S. amateurs to belong
to them. They've not been able to do that for years past.

ARRL refuses to take a stand on code testing in the USA yet the
International Amateur Radio Union long ago came out for eliminating
the code test internationally. Once that happens, NCI has stated
that it will dissolve, cease to exist as a special interest entity.

NCI is a very small group, has no law firm on retainer in DC, nor
does it have another group on retainer to lobby the FCC. ARRL does.
NCI directors get out and personally lobby for action on elimination
of code testing, including all the way to Geneva and WRC-03...and
not on a multi-million annual budget available to the ARRL.

ARRL is your shepherd, you shall not want...

Amen

LHA

Subject: Why You Don't Like The ARRL
From: (Len Over 21)
Date: 12/22/03 1:10 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

Jimmie isn't stating any "facts."

Lennie! Again with the belittling names towards people who don't do it to
you.

Do we need to re-post the posts wherein YOU stated you DON'T respond with
such cutesy names when not so addressed yourself?

It's been at least five years now that you've been calling Jim "Jimmie",
the "pedantic parson", etc.

Why do you lie? Why do you insist on making such obviously irresponsible
assertions only to have them fed back to you?

Is being an idiot a family curse?

Unlike the ARRL...which IS a dues-asking, amateur license required,
membership organization and political special interest group and a
publishing business, NCI does not pretend to represent "all" amateurs.

An Amateur Radio license is NOT required for membership in the American
Radio Relay League. It never has.

When the ARRL lobbies in washington, it DOES seek to represent ALL
Amateurs, dues paying or not.

I have yet to see the ARRL submit any document saying "We represent all
Amateurs except..(fill in the names)..."

ARRL pretends to "represent all amateurs" yet they still haven't
gotten close to a majority of all licensed U.S. amateurs to belong
to them. They've not been able to do that for years past.

Yet the ARRL IS accepted by the FCC and a number of other Washington
agencies as THE defacto representive of Amateur Radio as a whole.

This is a fact. It is not subject to YOUR opinion, Lennie.

Sorry.

ARRL refuses to take a stand on code testing in the USA yet the
International Amateur Radio Union long ago came out for eliminating
the code test internationally. Once that happens, NCI has stated
that it will dissolve, cease to exist as a special interest entity.

The code test requirement as an international regulation has been
eliminated.

So I don't see the NCI wrapping things up.

ARRL is your shepherd, you shall not want...

Lennie is an arrogant fool, we know this well...

Steve, K4YZ

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

N2EY wrote:

In article ,

(Len Over 21) writes:

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.

Jimmie isn't stating any "facts."

"Of whom are you speaking, old man?"

Right in NCI's bylaws it says that any member who publicly disagrees with their
stated position on code testing is subject to expulsion.

Fact or fiction?

They also require that all members agree to their prime directive goal as a
condition of membership.

Fact or fiction?

No one who disagrees with their core policy can be a member of NoCode
International.

Fact or fiction?

He is simply manufacturing an
argument for the sake of something to argue about. SOP for Jimmie.

"I tell it like it is. You are just another arrogant control-freak wanting
others to be subservient to your viewpoints. You can't accept a damn thing if
it isn't in line with your holy opinions."


[he seems to need something, anything, to argue about every day]

"Reality points to the fact that you CANNOT accept any opinions contrary to
your own with grace or gentle manner...you constantly, belligerently go after
any person who can stand up to you and show where your ideas aren't valid."

No Code International is most of all a political special interest group.
It asks for no dues, does not demand a license of any kind in order
to belong.

But it does require absolute allegiance to its prime directive of eliminating
all code testing. No disagreement or dissent allowed, under penalty of
expulsion.

Unlike the ARRL...which IS a dues-asking, amateur license required,
membership organization and political special interest group and a
publishing business, NCI does not pretend to represent "all" amateurs.

NCI says that it knows what is best for the future of amateur radio.

ARRL pretends to "represent all amateurs"

Where does it claim that? Show us an exact quote.

yet they still haven't
gotten close to a majority of all licensed U.S. amateurs to belong
to them. They've not been able to do that for years past.

The exact size of either organization is unknown, but from all davailable data
it is clear that ARRL, despite dues and annual renewals, is at least 30 times
the size of NCI.

ARRL accepts for membership those who disagree with and want to change their
policies. NCI does not.

There has been an amateur license available in the USA without any code test
for almost 13 years now. ARRL membership voting rights are the same regardless
of license class.

ARRL refuses to take a stand on code testing in the USA yet the
International Amateur Radio Union long ago came out for eliminating
the code test internationally.

"Strange words. According to the FCC, not to mention a couple of Acts of
Congress (one in 1934, another in 1996), only the FCC created the class of the
(no-code-test) Technician license. Not the US Congress. Not the ITU."

Once that happens, NCI has stated
that it will dissolve, cease to exist as a special interest entity.

Perhaps it will, perhaps it won't.

It seems you want ARRL to dissolve, cease to exist. You accept the organization
that does not allow dissent, and reject the organization that accepts and
allows dissent. Why?

NCI is a very small group,

What is its exact membership?

has no law firm on retainer in DC,

"Oh, my, were you admitted to a bar this afternoon and thought you had become a
legal beagle? Arf, arf?"

nor
does it have another group on retainer to lobby the FCC.

Why would that be needed for a single issue?

ARRL does.
NCI directors get out and personally lobby for action on elimination
of code testing, including all the way to Geneva and WRC-03...and
not on a multi-million annual budget available to the ARRL.

WK3C was at Geneva for reasons other than S25.5. His way was paid for by his
employer. He has stated that right here in this newsgroup. He did not go on his
own nickel, or NCI's.

"I'd like to see YOU address the FCC in the same manner as you address others."


"When I see "cogent debate" from yourself, sans the snarly sarcasm...from
yourself, I'll be more than happy to do REAL debate with you.....

You can't do it. Have never done it."

You get one guess who wrote the wors in quotes.

N2EY wrote:

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:


In article , Mike Coslo
writes:


N2EY wrote:


In article ,



(Len Over 21) writes:

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.

Jimmie isn't stating any "facts."


"Of whom are you speaking, old man?"

Right in NCI's bylaws it says that any member who publicly disagrees with their
stated position on code testing is subject to expulsion.

Fact or fiction?

They also require that all members agree to their prime directive goal as a
condition of membership.

Fact or fiction?

No one who disagrees with their core policy can be a member of NoCode
International.

Fact or fiction?

And yet....... while expulsion can be obtained so easily in one matter,
there is an extreme amount of slack granted for "unofficial" positions
on other matters regarding amateur radio! Why doesn't NCI have a
position on anything else?


He is simply manufacturing an
argument for the sake of something to argue about. SOP for Jimmie.


"I tell it like it is. You are just another arrogant control-freak wanting
others to be subservient to your viewpoints. You can't accept a damn thing if
it isn't in line with your holy opinions."



[he seems to need something, anything, to argue about every day]


"Reality points to the fact that you CANNOT accept any opinions contrary to
your own with grace or gentle manner...you constantly, belligerently go after
any person who can stand up to you and show where your ideas aren't valid."


No Code International is most of all a political special interest group.
It asks for no dues, does not demand a license of any kind in order
to belong.


But it does require absolute allegiance to its prime directive of eliminating
all code testing. No disagreement or dissent allowed, under penalty of
expulsion.

Unlike the ARRL...which IS a dues-asking, amateur license required,
membership organization and political special interest group and a
publishing business, NCI does not pretend to represent "all" amateurs.


NCI says that it knows what is best for the future of amateur radio.

ARRL pretends to "represent all amateurs"


Where does it claim that? Show us an exact quote.


yet they still haven't
gotten close to a majority of all licensed U.S. amateurs to belong
to them. They've not been able to do that for years past.


The exact size of either organization is unknown, but from all davailable data
it is clear that ARRL, despite dues and annual renewals, is at least 30 times
the size of NCI.

ARRL accepts for membership those who disagree with and want to change their
policies. NCI does not.

There has been an amateur license available in the USA without any code test
for almost 13 years now. ARRL membership voting rights are the same regardless
of license class.

ARRL refuses to take a stand on code testing in the USA yet the
International Amateur Radio Union long ago came out for eliminating
the code test internationally.


"Strange words. According to the FCC, not to mention a couple of Acts of
Congress (one in 1934, another in 1996), only the FCC created the class of the
(no-code-test) Technician license. Not the US Congress. Not the ITU."


Once that happens, NCI has stated
that it will dissolve, cease to exist as a special interest entity.


Perhaps it will, perhaps it won't.

Maybe this is the point for another poll, Jim?


It seems you want ARRL to dissolve, cease to exist. You accept the organization
that does not allow dissent, and reject the organization that accepts and
allows dissent. Why?

NCI is a very small group,


What is its exact membership?

Always growing!


has no law firm on retainer in DC,


"Oh, my, were you admitted to a bar this afternoon and thought you had become a
legal beagle? Arf, arf?"


nor
does it have another group on retainer to lobby the FCC.


Why would that be needed for a single issue?


ARRL does.
NCI directors get out and personally lobby for action on elimination
of code testing, including all the way to Geneva and WRC-03...and
not on a multi-million annual budget available to the ARRL.


WK3C was at Geneva for reasons other than S25.5. His way was paid for by his
employer. He has stated that right here in this newsgroup. He did not go on his
own nickel, or NCI's.

"I'd like to see YOU address the FCC in the same manner as you address others."

Snarf!!!! 8^)

- 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