"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ...
"KØHB" wrote in message
link.net...

"N2EY" wrote


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, sometimes I think it IS a good idea. That sort of activity is often
called leadership.

Other times I think it's NOT a good idea.

The mark of a good leader is determining the difference.

73, de Hans, K0HB

Hans,

You and I are on the same frequency on this one ... you said it
clearer than I did the first time, but hopefully my explanation was
better in response to Jim's question.

73,
Carl - wk3c

Carl, that's the one aspect that I have found the most disappointing
about the ARRL leadership, they "governed" - like Clinton - with
polls.

Their big poll was one of the most poorly constructed polls I've ever
seen. Even worse is that they paid an outside agency to do it - with
our dues money. The fact that -I- helped pay for that poll and I
didn't even receive a questionaire was just icing on the cake.

I never saw the ARRL vision of the future as anything other than old
men in Western Union garb tapping away at their keys. That should be
their vision of the past, not the future. Repeating the past over and
over again gets the ARS where? One more tube regen receiver article
will likely put me over the edge.

I know the ARRL is a superb watchdog concerning legislation that
affects the ARS. They are also the best publishing house on radio
related material. Their lab reviews are unrivaled. And their
operating activities are lots of fun. Thus, I continue to support the
ARRL.

But with respect to the future, just about any decision is better than
no decision.

73, Brian