Why You Don't Like The ARRL
 

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 -

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."

Len Over 21 wrote:

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?

Not at all.

Poor baby.

I'm not poor and I'm not your baby.

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

A MINORITY.

The LARGEST organization of radio amateurs in this country. The
minority making up the League's membership vastly exceeds your army of
one.

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

You are not in either camp.

I'm in our home office right now. Haven't been to "camp" for a while.

Why do you ask?

I asked you nothing. Pay attention.

Is there a morse camp one has to go to in amateur radio?

:-)

Maybe there is a morse camp available. Perhaps it could help with your
morse learning disability. :-) :-)

Dave K8MN

"Dave Heil" wrote:

I hope Dwight Stewart is reading this
and makes some mental connections
between your comments above and
what I wrote to him earlier.


I'm following along, Dave. You seem to be giving just as much as you get.
Len is working hard to pull your strings and you're working hard to pull
just as many strings yourself. And the debate (if you want to call it that)
goes on.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
nk.net...
"Dave Heil" wrote:

I hope Dwight Stewart is reading this
and makes some mental connections
between your comments above and
what I wrote to him earlier.


I'm following along, Dave. You seem to be giving just as much as you
get.
Len is working hard to pull your strings and you're working hard to pull
just as many strings yourself. And the debate (if you want to call it
that)
goes on.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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


pssssst, I think Len is superior at pulling Dave's strings...

Kim W5TIT

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

"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.

What percentage of US hams belong to NCI? (Less than 1%)


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.

More than 99% are not NCI members, either.

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

Good point!

I would add this, though:

There are currently about 684,000 individuals with US amateur radio licenses.
Of these, at least 328,000 hold General, Advanced or Extra class amateur
licenses. (I mention this group because they have access to all amateur radio
HF/MF bands and modes, at full power). Novices and "Techs with HF" make up at
least another 100,000, but their privileges only cover two modes and small
parts of four bands.

Not including the five 60 meter channels and the Alaska emergency frequency,
the US amateur bands below 30 MHz amount to 3,750 kHz of spectrum.

So why aren't the bands filled to overflowing with amateur signals 24/7? If
even 1% of those 328,000 are on the HF/MF bands at any given time, that's 3,280
- a litle more than a kHz per ham, from the bottom of 160 to the top of 10.
And that's not counting DX or Novices and Tech-Pluses.

A similar situation exists on VHF/UHF.

The inescapable conclusion is that many of those listed in the database are
either totally inactive or only slightly active.

73 de Jim, N2EY

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

Sounds like you have your work cut out for yourself. Do you think you
can gather the data, verify it, analyse it, and report your
conclusions in a week? two weeks? Go ahead and take as long as you
like.

[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.

I think the average age of the NRA members would be much lower than
the two retirement organizations. ;^)

But I thought that this was an Amateur Radio discussion. ;^0

Dave Heil wrote:
Len Over 21 wrote:

snippage


You are not in either camp.

I'm in our home office right now. Haven't been to "camp" for a while.

Why do you ask?


I asked you nothing. Pay attention.


Is there a morse camp one has to go to in amateur radio?

:-)


Maybe there is a morse camp available. Perhaps it could help with your
morse learning disability. :-) :-)


Well, there is this:

http://www.trefoilnet.net/disp/morse.htm

- Mike KB3EIA -

Dwight Stewart wrote:
"Dave Heil" wrote:

I hope Dwight Stewart is reading this
and makes some mental connections
between your comments above and
what I wrote to him earlier.



I'm following along, Dave. You seem to be giving just as much as you get.
Len is working hard to pull your strings and you're working hard to pull
just as many strings yourself. And the debate (if you want to call it that)
goes on.


Co-dependency? Running for cover now! 8^)

But seriously, you hit on something. These guys really don't mind
bashing each other at all. The anger, name calling, and baiting is just
stress relief, IMO. So I just sit back and enjoy the show. Might even be
a new genre' "Reality Newsgroup"! 8^)

- Mike KB3EIA -

Mike Coslo wrote:

Dave Heil wrote:
Len Over 21 wrote:

snippage

You are not in either camp.

I'm in our home office right now. Haven't been to "camp" for a while.

Why do you ask?


I asked you nothing. Pay attention.


Is there a morse camp one has to go to in amateur radio?

:-)


Maybe there is a morse camp available. Perhaps it could help with your
morse learning disability. :-) :-)

Well, there is this:

http://www.trefoilnet.net/disp/morse.htm

I think you've come up with some valueable aids for overcoming Len's
inertia.

Dave K8MN

Dave Heil wrote:
Len Over 21 wrote:

snippage

You are not in either camp.

I'm in our home office right now. Haven't been to "camp" for a while.

Why do you ask?


I asked you nothing. Pay attention.


Is there a morse camp one has to go to in amateur radio?

:-)


Maybe there is a morse camp available. Perhaps it could help with your
morse learning disability. :-) :-)

Here, Len--I found one for you. Maybe a few of the lads will be able to
provide you some helpful pointers.

http://www.shohola.com/hamradio.html

Dave K8MN

In article ,
(Brian) writes:

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

Darn-it, Len, I wanted Dee to say those things.

She never will... :-)


I think those endless droplets of water falling and hitting her
between the eyes, while listening to Farnsworth-spaced propoganda from
W1AW will be hard to undo.

Nah. It's a more subtle form of propaganda...lying by omission.

Any organization that has a large media base can do that bit
by simply omitting content that is unfavorable to the media Hq.

They control the media content.

If the high wire-pullers at the League want to emphasize code by
deemphasizing all other modes, they have perfect control to do so.

No one else will be the wiser if all the news-events-doings comes
their way via League-controlled information. Everyone is captive
if they don't have other sources of information. Very subtle.

LHA

In article , "Kim W5TIT"
writes:

Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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


pssssst, I think Len is superior at pulling Dave's strings...

Shhhh...don't tell anybody... :-) :-) :-)

LHA

Dave Heil wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:

Dave Heil wrote:

Len Over 21 wrote:

snippage

You are not in either camp.

I'm in our home office right now. Haven't been to "camp" for a while.

Why do you ask?


I asked you nothing. Pay attention.



Is there a morse camp one has to go to in amateur radio?

:-)


Maybe there is a morse camp available. Perhaps it could help with your
morse learning disability. :-) :-)

Well, there is this:

http://www.trefoilnet.net/disp/morse.htm


I think you've come up with some valueable aids for overcoming Len's
inertia.

Always willing to help!

- Mike KB3EIA -

"N2EY" wrote


The inescapable conclusion is that many of those listed in the database
are
either totally inactive or only slightly active.


I don't think it's "inescapable" --- in fact, I think it's incredibly
far-fetched to expect that...

1) ...1% of all of us would be on the air transmitting at any given moment,
and....

2) ... even if we were, that more than a fraction of that 1% would be heard
at any given QTH, presuming they're somewhat evenly distributed across the
available 3,750 kHz of spectrum.

I consider myself a reasonably active licensee, perhaps more active than the
average. Other than contest weekends, my transmitter is actually ON THE AIR
transmitting a signal perhaps no more than 60 minutes a week. That's less
than 1% of the time that you could hear on the air, propagation permitting.
If everyone were as active as me, it would take 168 hams transmitting (and
presumably another 168 listening --- total of 336 hams) to keep a single
frequency occupied 24/7. Now if we suppose that on average, each ongoing
QSO occupies 1kHz of spectrum (phone takes up more, morse and data take up
less) we'd need 1,260,000 (336 x 3750) active hams to keep all frequencies
QRL 24/7. Of course this presumes that every QSO would be heard everywhere,
but thanks to the magic of RF propagation, we are able share most
frequencies geographically, and in fact more than two stations can
simultaneously use a single frequency.

So much for your 'inescapable' conclusion!!!

73, de Hans, K0HB

In article . net, "KØHB"
writes:

I don't think it's "inescapable" --- in fact, I think it's incredibly
far-fetched to expect that...

1) ...1% of all of us would be on the air transmitting at any given moment,
and....

That works out to 1 hour and 22 minutes of transmitting per week per ham.

2) ... even if we were, that more than a fraction of that 1% would be heard
at any given QTH,

Very true!

presuming they're somewhat evenly distributed across the
available 3,750 kHz of spectrum.

That's the really far-fetched part. Distribution won't ever be even or even
nearly so, by frequency or time. At 2AM local during sunspot minimum, the 1700
kHz of 10 meters isn't lilkely to be full of signals.

I consider myself a reasonably active licensee, perhaps more active than the
average. Other than contest weekends, my transmitter is actually ON THE AIR
transmitting a signal perhaps no more than 60 minutes a week. That's less
than 1% of the time that you could hear on the air, propagation permitting.

Well, there you have it. Some would say an hour a week is reasonably active,
others would say it's quite inactive, etc. YMMV

If everyone were as active as me, it would take 168 hams transmitting (and
presumably another 168 listening --- total of 336 hams) to keep a single
frequency occupied 24/7.

And that's the point - everyone isn't even as active as you (on noncontest
weekends)

Now if we suppose that on average, each ongoing
QSO occupies 1kHz of spectrum (phone takes up more, morse and data take up
less) we'd need 1,260,000 (336 x 3750) active hams to keep all frequencies
QRL 24/7.

Exactly! And the bands aren't anywhere near that busy - even on contest
weekends.

Of course this presumes that every QSO would be heard everywhere,
but thanks to the magic of RF propagation, we are able share most
frequencies geographically, and in fact more than two stations can
simultaneously use a single frequency.

And then there's things like roundtables and nets.

So much for your 'inescapable' conclusion!!!

bwaahaahaa



73 de Jim, N2EY

In article et, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:

Len is working hard to pull your strings

It isn't a string that Len is pulling. And it's not on Dave.

;-) ;-0 ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-0 ;-) ;-0 ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-0 ;-) ;-0 ;-) ;-)
;-) ;-) ;-) ;-0 ;-) ;-0 ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-0 ;-) ;-0 ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-0
;-) ;-0 ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-0

Len Over 21 wrote:

In article , "Kim W5TIT"
writes:

Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

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


pssssst, I think Len is superior at pulling Dave's strings...

Shhhh...don't tell anybody... :-) :-) :-)

Is this the part where you make me one of your playthings or have me
fall into one of your carefully laid snares, Len?

N2EY wrote:

In article et, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:


Len is working hard to pull your strings


It isn't a string that Len is pulling. And it's not on Dave.

;-) ;-0 ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-0 ;-) ;-0 ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-0 ;-) ;-0 ;-) ;-)
;-) ;-) ;-) ;-0 ;-) ;-0 ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-0 ;-) ;-0 ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-0
;-) ;-0 ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-0

Spunky today, eh Jim!

8^)

- Mike KB3EIA -

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."

You made quite a lengthy plea to the FCC
for the elimination of morse testing and for institution of a minimum
age requirement for amateur licensing.

That is correct.

Are you now telling us that you
didn't mean those things?

I'm pretty sure Mr. Anderson means them. But even if he doesn't, he
has not disavowed them to FCC or to us.

If not, it looks as if you, a
non-participant, knows far more about what is good for amateur radio
than any active, licensed ham.

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.

His hobby isn't radio. His hobby is wasting time. Your time.

"What is best" is what YOU like. Everyone understands that.

No, that's what you're comments to the FCC and your comments here
indicate that you believe: that what is best for amateur radio should be
decided by someone who isn't remotely involved.

Not what is best.....

That's why the staunch Believers insist on morsemanship as the
Ulimate in amateur akill...even after the entirety of the rest of the
radio world gave up on morse codes for communication. "They
KNOW what is best" therefore their way MUST triumph.

You claim to know what is best for amateur radio.

Nope.

Your weak denial rings hollow.

Not at all. Mr. Anderson wants what he wants, not what is best for
amateur radio. See how logically consistent that is?

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?

Wouldn't another way be to constantly bash and deny the
accomplishments, practices and traditions of amateurs and the national
organization for amateur radio?

Wouldn't yet another way be to spread false information and to push
for rules changes that have no purpose except to reduce the number of
newcomers (like age restrictions)?

Think about it, Dave. Remember the behavior profile. One of your
premises is faulty.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Len Over 21 wrote:

...written by many of the beligerant...

"belligerent"

...as long as such beligerance remains rooted

"belligerence"

Dave K8MN

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

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