"N2EY" wrote in message
om...
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...
Leadership is
when one has the courage and wisdom to make a sound judgement
and then "do the right thing."

Who decides what "the right thing" really is?

That's what "leadership" is *supposed* to be there for ... to make
the tough calls when the answer isn't necessarily obvious (or may
be right, but not overwhelmingly popular).

For example, look at
that "21st century" paper (CQ published it, btw, and it was in their
mill before I evder saw it, so don't give me a hard time about it). Is
the "Communicator" idea "the right thing"?

No ... we need more people who understand radio, not more appliance
operators.

Otherwise, they could just do a web vote
popularity contest on every issue and wouldn't need Directors ... the
staff could handle the whole thing ...

And if that vote runs opposite to what you think is "the right thing"?

I wasn't advocating a popularity contest ... just saying that if nobody in
"leadership" has the cajones and good judgement to make the right call,
then it might as well devolve to that ...

It sounds to me like you're saying the ARRL Directors should sometimes
go against what the majority of members say they want. Do you really
think that's a good idea?

Yes ... the leadership should, theoretically at least, have superior
knowledge,
insight, and experience and should be there to guide, not simply be a bunch
of political "yes men" to a majority who may/may not necessarily make the
best
choices in terms of what's in the best interests of ham radio long term.

What I was referring to were things like CW practice, bulletins, etc.
All
of that could
be provided (and much is) by the web site, and probably would reduce
operating
costs. (Though doing things by non-radio means is heresy to some ...)

IOW, you want to shut down the station.

No, I wasn't saying that ... I was just "thinking out loud" about what
things
might be more cost-effectively provided by other means.

The whole point of W1AW is to do those things by *radio*. If we're
going to use the website for bulletins and code practice, why not rag
chewing, traffic handling, DX chasing, contesting......

I've always said that the ampr.org domain should be come a much more
integrated, vibrant part of the internet as a whole ...

Carl - wk3c

Carl R. Stevenson wrote:

"N2EY" wrote in message
om...

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message

...

Leadership is
when one has the courage and wisdom to make a sound judgement
and then "do the right thing."

Who decides what "the right thing" really is?


That's what "leadership" is *supposed* to be there for ... to make
the tough calls when the answer isn't necessarily obvious (or may
be right, but not overwhelmingly popular).

Sure. In one group I was the director of, I directly defied a board
decision, reinstating something that they revoked. But even then, I
relied on the input of the people that were affected by the board's
decision. They were displeased by the decision, and appealed to me to do
something. They were right, so I did it. Then offered my resignation to
the board for the defiance. (being a leader does not give you unlimited
power)

Oddly enough, my offer was unanimously rejected. I think the rest of the
BOD was actually relieved.

But the occasional and very uncomfortable times that you have to stick
your neck out does not releas you from a obligation to listen as often
as possible.


For example, look at
that "21st century" paper (CQ published it, btw, and it was in their
mill before I evder saw it, so don't give me a hard time about it). Is
the "Communicator" idea "the right thing"?


No ... we need more people who understand radio, not more appliance
operators.

and we are headed in the opposite direction.


Otherwise, they could just do a web vote
popularity contest on every issue and wouldn't need Directors ... the
staff could handle the whole thing ...

And if that vote runs opposite to what you think is "the right thing"?


I wasn't advocating a popularity contest ... just saying that if nobody in
"leadership" has the cajones and good judgement to make the right call,
then it might as well devolve to that ...

Must be pretty good to always know what the "right call" is.


It sounds to me like you're saying the ARRL Directors should sometimes
go against what the majority of members say they want. Do you really
think that's a good idea?


Yes ... the leadership should, theoretically at least, have superior
knowledge,
insight, and experience and should be there to guide, not simply be a bunch
of political "yes men" to a majority who may/may not necessarily make the
best
choices in terms of what's in the best interests of ham radio long term.

Of course not. But they still have to represent their constituents. In
our locale, we have had a number of County commissioners that believed
they had the right ideas, to the point of ignoring what a large majority
of the citezenry wanted, and with their "leadership" saddled the county
with a huge new and unnesesary project and the billing therof.
Commisioner 1 was the lowest vote-getter in the next election, and
commisioner two was smart enough to not run again for that office. THe
only one re-elected was the sole commissioner who voted against the project.

These people displayed your kind of "leadership". Once.

- Mike KB3EIA -

In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
. com...
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...
Leadership is
when one has the courage and wisdom to make a sound judgement
and then "do the right thing."

Who decides what "the right thing" really is?

That's what "leadership" is *supposed* to be there for ... to make
the tough calls when the answer isn't necessarily obvious (or may
be right, but not overwhelmingly popular).

But ultimately it comes down to popularity, because if the "leader" makes
unpopular-enough decision(s), he/she may not be a "leader" anymore. This
happens in government, in business (if a decision isn't popular-enough with
customers and/or stockholders), and in almost all voluntary organizations.

For example, look at
that "21st century" paper (CQ published it, btw, and it was in their
mill before I evder saw it, so don't give me a hard time about it). Is
the "Communicator" idea "the right thing"?

No ... we need more people who understand radio, not more appliance
operators.

Agreed!

But the leaders of the NCVEC committee disagree with us.

And some of the provisions of the "Communicator" work against that. (No rigs
over 30 volts??)

But others will argue that an easier entry-level license will attract more new
hams, and therefore more who will want to *understand radio*. After all, isn't
education one of the B&Ps of the ARS?

It boils down to the old argument of:

"Become a ham to learn about radio"

vs.

"Learn about radio to become a ham"

Otherwise, they could just do a web vote
popularity contest on every issue and wouldn't need Directors ... the
staff could handle the whole thing ...

And if that vote runs opposite to what you think is "the right thing"?

I wasn't advocating a popularity contest ... just saying that if nobody in
"leadership" has the cajones and good judgement to make the right call,
then it might as well devolve to that ...

They *do* have the intestinal fortitude to make the "right" call. But there's
disagreement about what that call is. There are honest people on all sides of
most disagreements.

It sounds to me like you're saying the ARRL Directors should sometimes
go against what the majority of members say they want. Do you really
think that's a good idea?

Yes ... the leadership should, theoretically at least, have superior
knowledge,
insight, and experience and should be there to guide, not simply be a bunch
of political "yes men" to a majority who may/may not necessarily make the
best
choices in terms of what's in the best interests of ham radio long term.

Others describe the ARRL leadership as "self appointed gods of radio" who claim
to "know what is best". And they use that description as a reason not to join.

Like it or not, it's ultimately a popularity contest. And the long term is hard
to gauge because things aren't left alone long enough. Even when they are,
there is often little agreement with what the results mean.

For example, did US amateur radio grow faster in the nocodetest 90s than in the
allcodetest 80s?

What I was referring to were things like CW practice, bulletins, etc.
All
of that could
be provided (and much is) by the web site, and probably would reduce
operating
costs. (Though doing things by non-radio means is heresy to some ...)

IOW, you want to shut down the station.

No, I wasn't saying that ... I was just "thinking out loud" about what
things
might be more cost-effectively provided by other means.

If the bulletins and code practice were done online instead of on-air, what
would be left of W1AW?

The whole point of W1AW is to do those things by *radio*. If we're
going to use the website for bulletins and code practice, why not rag
chewing, traffic handling, DX chasing, contesting......

I've always said that the ampr.org domain should be come a much more
integrated, vibrant part of the internet as a whole ...

But what have you *done* to make that a reality except for talking about it?

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , (N2EY)
writes:

In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
.com...
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...
Leadership is
when one has the courage and wisdom to make a sound judgement
and then "do the right thing."

Who decides what "the right thing" really is?

That's what "leadership" is *supposed* to be there for ... to make
the tough calls when the answer isn't necessarily obvious (or may
be right, but not overwhelmingly popular).

But ultimately it comes down to popularity, because if the "leader" makes
unpopular-enough decision(s), he/she may not be a "leader" anymore. This
happens in government, in business (if a decision isn't popular-enough with
customers and/or stockholders), and in almost all voluntary organizations.

For example, look at
that "21st century" paper (CQ published it, btw, and it was in their
mill before I evder saw it, so don't give me a hard time about it). Is
the "Communicator" idea "the right thing"?

No ... we need more people who understand radio, not more appliance
operators.

Agreed!

But the leaders of the NCVEC committee disagree with us.

Such is forbidden!

You need no consensus. You KNOW the true way.

All else are ignorant, incapable of the correct decisions.



It boils down to the old argument of:

"Become a ham to learn about radio"

vs.

"Learn about radio to become a ham"

NO ONE can be "interested in radio" without getting a ham
license!

Know morse and one knows all.


Otherwise, they could just do a web vote
popularity contest on every issue and wouldn't need Directors ... the
staff could handle the whole thing ...

And if that vote runs opposite to what you think is "the right thing"?

I wasn't advocating a popularity contest ... just saying that if nobody in
"leadership" has the cajones and good judgement to make the right call,
then it might as well devolve to that ...

They *do* have the intestinal fortitude to make the "right" call. But there's
disagreement about what that call is. There are honest people on all sides of
most disagreements.

But...you KNOW the true way already.

There can be NO disagreement then.


It sounds to me like you're saying the ARRL Directors should sometimes
go against what the majority of members say they want. Do you really
think that's a good idea?

Yes ... the leadership should, theoretically at least, have superior
knowledge,
insight, and experience and should be there to guide, not simply be a bunch
of political "yes men" to a majority who may/may not necessarily make the
best
choices in terms of what's in the best interests of ham radio long term.

Others describe the ARRL leadership as "self appointed gods of radio" who
claim
to "know what is best". And they use that description as a reason not to
join.

Gasp...you mean to imply they DON'T know what is best?!?!?

Like it or not, it's ultimately a popularity contest. And the long term is
hard
to gauge because things aren't left alone long enough. Even when they are,
there is often little agreement with what the results mean.

You need NO consensus. You KNOW.


If the bulletins and code practice were done online instead of on-air, what
would be left of W1AW?

It's a MEMORIAL station. Remember?


The whole point of W1AW is to do those things by *radio*. If we're
going to use the website for bulletins and code practice, why not rag
chewing, traffic handling, DX chasing, contesting......

I've always said that the ampr.org domain should be come a much more
integrated, vibrant part of the internet as a whole ...

But what have you *done* to make that a reality except for talking about it?

Just for starters, Carl was IN Geneva helping to get all of S25
redone. It got redone. Reality. Love it or leave it.

Some day I might hear W1AW out here 3000 or so miles away.
It doesn't reach Hawaii very well, or Alaska. Obviously us in the
west don't exist as states of the Union.

Nobody can possibly be "interested in radio" without testing for
morse code and then Acceptance of the True Way via ARRL.

LHA

In article ,
(Len Over 21) writes:

In article ,
(N2EY)
writes:

In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
e.com...
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...
Leadership is
when one has the courage and wisdom to make a sound judgement
and then "do the right thing."

Who decides what "the right thing" really is?

That's what "leadership" is *supposed* to be there for ... to make
the tough calls when the answer isn't necessarily obvious (or may
be right, but not overwhelmingly popular).

But ultimately it comes down to popularity, because if the "leader" makes
unpopular-enough decision(s), he/she may not be a "leader" anymore. This
happens in government, in business (if a decision isn't popular-enough with
customers and/or stockholders), and in almost all voluntary organizations.

For example, look at
that "21st century" paper (CQ published it, btw, and it was in their
mill before I evder saw it, so don't give me a hard time about it). Is
the "Communicator" idea "the right thing"?

No ... we need more people who understand radio, not more appliance
operators.

Agreed!

But the leaders of the NCVEC committee disagree with us.

Such is forbidden!

By whom?

You need no consensus.

Lack of consensus never stopped you from spreading your blatherskite all over,
Len, including your voluminous commentary to the FCC.

You KNOW the true way.

I know what I think is the best way for the ARS' future. WK3C knows what he
thinks is the best way for the ARS' future. On some things we disagree and on
some things we agree.

All else are ignorant, incapable of the correct decisions.


"That is your problem and you continually foul this newsgroup with arrogant
remarks against the person of those of opposite opinions. Not my problem but
certainly yours in attitude."

It boils down to the old argument of:

"Become a ham to learn about radio"

vs.

"Learn about radio to become a ham"

NO ONE can be "interested in radio" without getting a ham
license!

Says who?

Know morse and one knows all.

Not true.

Otherwise, they could just do a web vote
popularity contest on every issue and wouldn't need Directors ... the
staff could handle the whole thing ...

And if that vote runs opposite to what you think is "the right thing"?

I wasn't advocating a popularity contest ... just saying that if nobody in
"leadership" has the cajones and good judgement to make the right call,
then it might as well devolve to that ...

They *do* have the intestinal fortitude to make the "right" call. But
there's
disagreement about what that call is. There are honest people on all sides
of
most disagreements.

But...you KNOW the true way already.

I know what I think is the best way for the ARS' future.

There can be NO disagreement then.

More untruths from Len.

Of course there can be disagreement.

It sounds to me like you're saying the ARRL Directors should sometimes
go against what the majority of members say they want. Do you really
think that's a good idea?

Yes ... the leadership should, theoretically at least, have superior
knowledge,
insight, and experience and should be there to guide, not simply be a bunch
of political "yes men" to a majority who may/may not necessarily make the
best
choices in terms of what's in the best interests of ham radio long term.

Others describe the ARRL leadership as "self appointed gods of radio" who
claim
to "know what is best". And they use that description as a reason not to
join.

Gasp...you mean to imply they DON'T know what is best?!?!?

Do YOU know what is best, Len?

Or do you only know what you want, regardless of what others think?

Like it or not, it's ultimately a popularity contest. And the long term is
hard
to gauge because things aren't left alone long enough. Even when they are,
there is often little agreement with what the results mean.

You need NO consensus. You KNOW.

You've never needed a consensus, Len. Why should anyone else?

If the bulletins and code practice were done online instead of on-air, what
would be left of W1AW?

It's a MEMORIAL station. Remember?

A memorial to a great man, who you denigrate with childish snide remarks.

The whole point of W1AW is to do those things by *radio*. If we're
going to use the website for bulletins and code practice, why not rag
chewing, traffic handling, DX chasing, contesting......

I've always said that the ampr.org domain should be come a much more
integrated, vibrant part of the internet as a whole ...

But what have you *done* to make that a reality except for talking about it?

Just for starters, Carl was IN Geneva helping to get all of S25
redone.

WK3C was in Geneva for his work. His employer paid the way. No secret about
that, he told us all about it here on rrap.

It got redone. Reality. Love it or leave it.

"Administrations are free to impose morse code testing for all
amateur licensees if they so wish, or partial morse code
testing for privileges above 30 MHz. It is all up to each nation's
administrations."

That's reality, Len, as stated by you.

Some day I might hear W1AW out here 3000 or so miles away.

That would require a half-decent receiver and antenna, Len. Of course if you
choose to live in the shadow of a mountain, refuse to build or buy suitable
equipment, and refuse to inform yourself of when and where to listen, that's
not my problem.

Have you ever actually listened for W1AW, on a time and frequency where there
would be a reasonable chance of hearing it?

W1AW is about 200 miles northeast of here. I frequently contact west coast
amateurs on 80 and 40 meters using my homebrew and kit stations, with antennas
far inferior to W1AW's and much less power. If you can't receive W1AW where you
are, the problem is obviously at your end.

What we call "a short circuit between the headphones" or "cockpit trouble" ;-)

It doesn't reach Hawaii very well, or Alaska.

How do you know?

Obviously us in the
west don't exist as states of the Union.

More untruths. Gee, Len, you seem bent on spreading untruths and
misinformation.

Nobody can possibly be "interested in radio" without testing for
morse code and then Acceptance of the True Way via ARRL.

Another falsehood from Len. Anyone can be "interested in radio". But being
"interested in amateur radio" requires a license and active participation.

You're not interested, Len. You're not even interesting.

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

But others will argue that an easier entry-level license will attract more
new
hams, and therefore more who will want to *understand radio*. After all,
isn't
education one of the B&Ps of the ARS?

It boils down to the old argument of:

"Become a ham to learn about radio"

vs.

"Learn about radio to become a ham"



What it should be and too many fail to realize is that the proper sequence
is "Learn radio basics to become a ham and then as a ham continue to learn
and increase one's expertise." It should not be one versus the other.


Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

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

What it should be and too many fail to realize is that the proper sequence
is "Learn radio basics to become a ham and then as a ham continue to learn
and increase one's expertise." It should not be one versus the other.

The ONLY way to have an interest in radio is to get a ham license.

Nothing else matters.

Radio gods have spoken.

LHA

Len Over 21 wrote:

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

What it should be and too many fail to realize is that the proper sequence
is "Learn radio basics to become a ham and then as a ham continue to learn
and increase one's expertise." It should not be one versus the other.

The ONLY way to have an interest in radio is to get a ham license.

You could say that you have an interest in amateur radio, Len. It isn't
true, but you could say it.

You could say that you have an interest in gardening, but if your
interest extends only to walking past someone's garden and advising that
they're not properly caring for their climatus, you aren't a gardner.

You could say that you have a great interest in flying an airplane, but
if your interest extends to buying a ticket to fly to Chicago, you
aren't an aviator.

Reality points to the fact that you have nothing to do with amateur
radio other than to make submissions to the FCC regarding an avocation
in which you take no part.

Dave K8MN

In article , Dave Heil
writes:

Len Over 21 wrote:

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

What it should be and too many fail to realize is that the proper sequence
is "Learn radio basics to become a ham and then as a ham continue to learn
and increase one's expertise." It should not be one versus the other.

The ONLY way to have an interest in radio is to get a ham license.

You could say that you have an interest in amateur radio, Len. It isn't
true, but you could say it.

I haven't. I don't.

The only way to have an interest in radio is to get a ham license.

To you it doesn't count at all that "interest in radio" can result in
a half century of professional work...including design in radio.

To you it doesn't count that "interest in radio" AND electronics
can lead to very enjoyable hobby activities in building, testing,
designing new electronics things ('electronics' includes radio).

No, FIRST one "must" get an AMATEUR license according to
Herr Robust.

You could say that you have an interest in gardening, but if your
interest extends only to walking past someone's garden and advising that
they're not properly caring for their climatus, you aren't a gardner.

I've been into "gardening" for over 40 years. At this same address.

No amateur license required. No LICENSE required to garden.

Not a problem. I can discuss gardening with any neighbor and they
don't take offense. We share ideas, experiences, help each other
out.

In here, the arrogant officious ones DICTATE as to how all shall
behave according to their holy rules.

You could say that you have a great interest in flying an airplane, but
if your interest extends to buying a ticket to fly to Chicago, you
aren't an aviator.

I don't have a great interest in flying an airplane now. Too expensive.

I was once a student pilot. Still no license required for that. Not
even to operate a radio...already had the First Phone, so no 3rd
Class Restricted permit necessary.

An amateur radio license isn't legal to use on civil airways frequencies,
is it?

I am into flying R/C model aircraft on a casual basis...and have on
and off for 40+ years. NO license required there to use the 72 MHz
band channels. I've been into flying model aircraft for 60 years and
even worked as a professional at Testors before they got into the
plastic model side of that hobby. I was an International contestant
in that some time ago.

Reality points to the fact that you have nothing to do with amateur
radio other than to make submissions to the FCC regarding an avocation
in which you take no part.

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

The FCC accepts ALL input on ALL radio services, Herr Robust.
They don't need "licenses" in any radio service to accept comments.
I know that is a very foreign thought to your proud, arrogant holiness,
but that IS true.

I'd like to see YOU address the FCC in the same manner as you
address others. Good luck on that one now!

LHA

Subject: Why I Like The ARRL
From: (Len Over 21)
Date: 12/23/03 12:00 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

To you it doesn't count that "interest in radio" AND electronics
can lead to very enjoyable hobby activities in building, testing,
designing new electronics things ('electronics' includes radio).

But to be a Radio Amateur, as defined by the Federal Communicaitions
Commission, one must be a licensee.

You can call yourself a "radio hobbyist", radio afficionado, CBer, or
whatever else may fit. But "Radio Amateur" is not one of them.

You could say that you have a great interest in flying an airplane, but
if your interest extends to buying a ticket to fly to Chicago, you
aren't an aviator.

I don't have a great interest in flying an airplane now. Too expensive.

But..but...but...LENNIE!

YOU have been the one flaunting his copious retirement holdings and
telling us how grand it is to be you!

Are you now telling us you can't afford it...?!?!

The average cost of obtaining a Private Pilot's license in 1974 (when I
finished up my ticket) was around $2700. Todays it's just a bit over $3500.

I was once a student pilot. Still no license required for that. Not
even to operate a radio...already had the First Phone, so no 3rd
Class Restricted permit necessary.

Yes, Lennie...When you were a "student pilot" (snickering under my breath
here!!!!!) a permit was required to operate the radios...One is STILL required
if you intend to operate across an international boundry.

Your "first phone" was not acceptable for operating an aircraft radio.
The FAA did not accept ANYTHING except the Restricted Radiotelephone Permit as
late as the 1980's.

An amateur radio license isn't legal to use on civil airways frequencies,
is it?

Only you keep suggesting that "someone" suggests it is.

I am into flying R/C model aircraft on a casual basis...and have on
and off for 40+ years. NO license required there to use the 72 MHz
band channels. I've been into flying model aircraft for 60 years and
even worked as a professional at Testors before they got into the
plastic model side of that hobby. I was an International contestant
in that some time ago.

Then at one time you were required to have a station license for your Part
95 (Subpart C) operations. No...one is not required now. However YOU suggest
that it was not required "40+" years ago.

Again, you are in error, "Mr. Radio Professional".

Reality points to the fact that you have nothing to do with amateur
radio other than to make submissions to the FCC regarding an avocation
in which you take no part.

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

So far, Your Putziness, you ahve FAILED to make any argument that suggests
Dave's "ideas aren't valid".

You HAVE demonstrated your gross ignorance on a great number of radio
topics, and an even far greater number of issues (all, actually) relating to
Amateur Radio.

The FCC accepts ALL input on ALL radio services, Herr Robust.
They don't need "licenses" in any radio service to accept comments.
I know that is a very foreign thought to your proud, arrogant holiness,
but that IS true.

Again...YOUR assertion rings hollow. An error. A falsehood.

I'd like to see YOU address the FCC in the same manner as you
address others. Good luck on that one now!

Dave! Did you forget to bow in deep reverence to His Radio Holiness, Sir
Anderscum the First?

I am soooooooooo (NOT!) ashamed of you!

Steve, K4YZ