Why I Like The ARRL
 

In no particular order:

1) Representation of amateur radio (what other organization or individual would
do anyhting like the 121 page commentary on BPL?)

2) QST and other publications (only the RSGB Handbook is comparable)

3) Contests and operating activities (particularly SS and FD)

4) Product reviews (much more in-depth than any other amateur publication)

5) Elected officials (they listen even if they don't agree)

6) W1AW (been there and operated the station, too)

73 de Jim, N2EY

Harry Wolf wrote:
Put another way, you paid your ARRL life membership, you now
know that was a very poor decision, so you are now desperately
trying to rationalize your poor decision to yourself & us.

73 de Harry in Abilene


"N2EY" wrote in message
...

In no particular order:

1) Representation of amateur radio (what other organization or individual

would

do anyhting like the 121 page commentary on BPL?)

2) QST and other publications (only the RSGB Handbook is comparable)

3) Contests and operating activities (particularly SS and FD)

4) Product reviews (much more in-depth than any other amateur publication)

5) Elected officials (they listen even if they don't agree)

6) W1AW (been there and operated the station, too)

73 de Jim, N2EY

Or put yet another way, probably quite closer to the truth, is that
he's paid his dues and likes it just fine.

If you don't like the ARRL, that's fine. You don't have to be so bitter
about it, though!


- Mike KB3EIA -


- happily getting more than my money's worth out of the league.........

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Harry Wolf wrote:
Put another way, you paid your ARRL life membership, you now
know that was a very poor decision, so you are now desperately
trying to rationalize your poor decision to yourself & us.

73 de Harry in Abilene


"N2EY" wrote in message
...

In no particular order:

1) Representation of amateur radio (what other organization or
individual

would

do anyhting like the 121 page commentary on BPL?)

2) QST and other publications (only the RSGB Handbook is comparable)

3) Contests and operating activities (particularly SS and FD)

4) Product reviews (much more in-depth than any other amateur
publication)

5) Elected officials (they listen even if they don't agree)

6) W1AW (been there and operated the station, too)

73 de Jim, N2EY

Or put yet another way, probably quite closer to the truth, is that
he's paid his dues and likes it just fine.

If you don't like the ARRL, that's fine. You don't have to be so bitter
about it, though!


- Mike KB3EIA -


- happily getting more than my money's worth out of the league.........


Harry is whats knows as a 'spoiler'. Sort of like a field mouse coming into
your house, crapping all over it, chewing up what he can, and then running
away to hide.

Don't worry about it. There are so many of them on usenet you need a score
card to keep up.

Dan/W4NTI

N2EY wrote:

In no particular order:

1) Representation of amateur radio (what other organization or individual would
do anyhting like the 121 page commentary on BPL?)

2) QST and other publications (only the RSGB Handbook is comparable)

3) Contests and operating activities (particularly SS and FD)

4) Product reviews (much more in-depth than any other amateur publication)

5) Elected officials (they listen even if they don't agree)

6) W1AW (been there and operated the station, too)

To which I'll add my own reasons:

1) The League presents a unified voice to the FCC and to congress.

2) The DXCC program.

3) Contests (especially FD, the DX 'tests, VHF/UHF events, 160m Contest)

4) Field Organization (to include the SM, net managers, Emergency
Coordinators, OO's)

5) League bulletins, whether via W1AW, local nets or the internet

6) The web page.

7) W1AW (I've also operated from the station).

Dave K8MN

On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 04:58:32 +0000, N2EY wrote:

In no particular order:

1) Representation of amateur radio (what other organization or individual would
do anyhting like the 121 page commentary on BPL?)

2) QST and other publications (only the RSGB Handbook is comparable)

3) Contests and operating activities (particularly SS and FD)

4) Product reviews (much more in-depth than any other amateur publication)

5) Elected officials (they listen even if they don't agree)

6) W1AW (been there and operated the station, too)

73 de Jim, N2EY

I'll add:

1. They haven't revised the Amateur's Code to be Politically Correct.

2. A wealth of history is available through the QST View series.

3. ARES

4. QST holds a higher standard for products advertised to hams than any
other publication.

5. Doesn't send several fund-raising letters per week although this year
was busy for ARRL, I received two such mailings in 2003.

6. A field organization that will help anyone with an issue related to ham
radio, whether licensed or not, or an ARRL member or not.

7. Repeater Directory

8. The Handbook

9. The Antenna Book

10. ARRL Web site

I need to leave a few more for others to list!

73, de Nate

--

"The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds,
the pessimist fears this is true."

Dan/W4NTI wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

Harry Wolf wrote:

Put another way, you paid your ARRL life membership, you now
know that was a very poor decision, so you are now desperately
trying to rationalize your poor decision to yourself & us.

73 de Harry in Abilene


"N2EY" wrote in message
...


In no particular order:

1) Representation of amateur radio (what other organization or

individual

would


do anyhting like the 121 page commentary on BPL?)

2) QST and other publications (only the RSGB Handbook is comparable)

3) Contests and operating activities (particularly SS and FD)

4) Product reviews (much more in-depth than any other amateur

publication)

5) Elected officials (they listen even if they don't agree)

6) W1AW (been there and operated the station, too)

73 de Jim, N2EY

Or put yet another way, probably quite closer to the truth, is that
he's paid his dues and likes it just fine.

If you don't like the ARRL, that's fine. You don't have to be so bitter
about it, though!


- Mike KB3EIA -


- happily getting more than my money's worth out of the league.........



Harry is whats knows as a 'spoiler'. Sort of like a field mouse coming into
your house, crapping all over it, chewing up what he can, and then running
away to hide.

Don't worry about it. There are so many of them on usenet you need a score
card to keep up.


Yeah, but so many.... so many!



I wonder how they wasted their time and annoyed people before usenet?

- Mike KB3EIA -

Harry Wolf wrote:
Suuurrrrrrrrrrrre!
The faster you spin your story, the bigger a fool you appear
to us and the more $$$ the Newington buffoons rake in
from the gullible.

73 de Harry



HAR! Okay Harry! We'll sit in our fools paradise and enjoy the
presumably nonexistant benefits which we seem to think we're getting.


For all you Wobbly headed Bob fans:

http://bob.slightly-mental.net/




- Mike KB3EIA -

On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 16:38:17 -0500, Mike Coslo wrote:

I wonder how they wasted their time and annoyed people before usenet?

- Mike KB3EIA -

So that's why 75m is so quiet these days!

;-)

73, de Nate

--
Wireless | Amateur Radio Station N0NB | Successfully Microsoft
Internet | | free since January 1998.
Location | Bremen, Kansas USA EM19ov | "Debian, the choice of
Amateur radio exams; ham radio; Linux info @ | a GNU generation!"
http://www.qsl.net/n0nb/ | http://www.debian.org

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Harry Wolf wrote:
Put another way, you paid your ARRL life membership, you now
know that was a very poor decision, so you are now desperately
trying to rationalize your poor decision to yourself & us.

73 de Harry in Abilene


"N2EY" wrote in message
...

In no particular order:

1) Representation of amateur radio (what other organization or
individual

would

do anyhting like the 121 page commentary on BPL?)

2) QST and other publications (only the RSGB Handbook is comparable)

3) Contests and operating activities (particularly SS and FD)

4) Product reviews (much more in-depth than any other amateur
publication)

5) Elected officials (they listen even if they don't agree)

6) W1AW (been there and operated the station, too)

73 de Jim, N2EY

Or put yet another way, probably quite closer to the truth, is that
he's paid his dues and likes it just fine.

If you don't like the ARRL, that's fine. You don't have to be so bitter
about it, though!


- Mike KB3EIA -


- happily getting more than my money's worth out of the league.........


Same here. I've been quite pleased with what I get from the League. The
only times that I have not belonged after becoming a ham was when I was in
exceedingly difficult financial straights where even that little bit of
money could not be sparred. Thank goodness that didn't happen too often.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Dan/W4NTI wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...

Harry Wolf wrote:

Put another way, you paid your ARRL life membership, you now
know that was a very poor decision, so you are now desperately
trying to rationalize your poor decision to yourself & us.

73 de Harry in Abilene


"N2EY" wrote in message
...


In no particular order:

1) Representation of amateur radio (what other organization or

individual

would


do anyhting like the 121 page commentary on BPL?)

2) QST and other publications (only the RSGB Handbook is comparable)

3) Contests and operating activities (particularly SS and FD)

4) Product reviews (much more in-depth than any other amateur

publication)

5) Elected officials (they listen even if they don't agree)

6) W1AW (been there and operated the station, too)

73 de Jim, N2EY

Or put yet another way, probably quite closer to the truth, is that
he's paid his dues and likes it just fine.

If you don't like the ARRL, that's fine. You don't have to be so bitter
about it, though!


- Mike KB3EIA -


- happily getting more than my money's worth out of the league.........



Harry is whats knows as a 'spoiler'. Sort of like a field mouse coming
into
your house, crapping all over it, chewing up what he can, and then
running
away to hide.

Don't worry about it. There are so many of them on usenet you need a
score
card to keep up.


Yeah, but so many.... so many!



I wonder how they wasted their time and annoyed people before usenet?

- Mike KB3EIA -

The 'lucky ones' did it to their wives, or husbands. And if they got away
with that they spread it around their neighborhood. Until they ran into
'Bubba'. At which point it ALL stopped.

Now we have usenet. And they can't be found, well not quite so easily
anyway. So they feel safe.

Dan/W4NTI

I love the ARRL because I'm a ****ing Dumb-Ass.

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In no particular order:

1) Representation of amateur radio (what other organization or individual
would
do anyhting like the 121 page commentary on BPL?)

Representation of what the Board *perceives* to be the wishes of the
membership.
I don't believe that non-members get the same attention on issues as
members, but
that is reasonable, since member dues support the ARRL.

2) QST and other publications (only the RSGB Handbook is comparable)

QST has gotten better, with the dropping of a lot of the contest data and
more
focus on a range of articles from beginner to expert level. I'd like to see
more
technical focus on modern stuff and fewer articles on building regen
receivers
with tubes, though.

3) Contests and operating activities (particularly SS and FD)

I'm not a contester, but sponsoring such activities is fine (glad they're
not using valuable QST pages for data dumps of results, though ... the
website is a much better venue for that info).

4) Product reviews (much more in-depth than any other amateur publication)

The lab does a great job on product reviews.

5) Elected officials (they listen even if they don't agree)

YMMV, depending on what area you live in, whether your Director is
open-minded and progressive, etc.

6) W1AW (been there and operated the station, too)

I have mixed views on the value of W1AW ... a good museum to "the Old Man,"
but perhaps its services could be provided by alternative means at lower
operating
cost.

Having said all of that, I'll now surprise some of you who have accused me
of being
an "ARRL-hater" (not saying that Jim has made that accusation).

I recently paid the $975 fee and am now a Life Member of the ARRL.

While I've had, and may continue to have, disagreements on some aspects of
policy with the ARRL Board, I recognize that the ARRL does do a LOT of
good things for the ARS and, in addition to my previous contribution to the
BPL
fund, I wanted to support the organization's good works (I can always
continue
to fight with them on areas of disagreement :-)

73,
Carl - wk3c

In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In no particular order:

1) Representation of amateur radio (what other organization or individual
would do anyhting like the 121 page commentary on BPL?)

It should be mentioned that Carl has done very significant work in fighting
BPL, both in the form of first-hand observations and measurement of the Emmaus
test site, and commentary to the FCC. But even he, an experienced professional
in the field, cannot equal the resources of an organization like ARRL. (And I
bet he'll agree with me on that.

Representation of what the Board *perceives* to be the wishes of the
membership.

What else can be expected?

I don't believe that non-members get the same attention on issues as
members, but
that is reasonable, since member dues support the ARRL.

Exactly! Just like NCI...

2) QST and other publications (only the RSGB Handbook is comparable)

QST has gotten better, with the dropping of a lot of the contest data and
more focus on a range of articles from beginner to expert level.

I think the contest info belongs in QST as well as the articles.

I'd like to see more technical focus on modern stuff

Such as?

Perhaps you could write some articles for QST. I did.

and fewer articles on building regen receivers
with tubes, though.

Unless I missed something in the index, in the past 47-1/2 years, QST has had
exactly two articles on building ham band regenerative receivers with tubes.

3) Contests and operating activities (particularly SS and FD)

I'm not a contester, but sponsoring such activities is fine (glad they're
not using valuable QST pages for data dumps of results, though ... the
website is a much better venue for that info).

I disagree. The mag is permanent, the website isn't. Part of being a journal is
to document things for posterity.

I think the contest results, BoD minutes, and Section News belong in QST. As do
technical articles.

4) Product reviews (much more in-depth than any other amateur publication)

The lab does a great job on product reviews.

And has been for more than 20 years now. If a Product Review saves a member
from making just one expensive mistake, a lot of dues are paid for.

Remember the "Maxxcomm Matcher" (sp?).

5) Elected officials (they listen even if they don't agree)

YMMV, depending on what area you live in, whether your Director is
open-minded and progressive, etc.

Every ARRL director and vice-director I've dealt with has been open-minded and
progressive. Including our present Atlantic division director and vice
director.

6) W1AW (been there and operated the station, too)

I have mixed views on the value of W1AW ... a good museum to "the Old Man,"
but perhaps its services could be provided by alternative means at lower
operating cost.

How would you suggest they be done?

While I've had, and may continue to have, disagreements on some aspects of
policy with the ARRL Board, I recognize that the ARRL does do a LOT of
good things for the ARS and, in addition to my previous contribution to the
BPL fund, I wanted to support the organization's good works (I can always
continue to fight with them on areas of disagreement :-)

I agree with all of that except for one small point. The ARRL is not "them" -
the ARRL is "us" (the members). We elect the policy-makers (Directors and Vice
Directors) and the Section Managers (who don't make policy, but are the top
field personnel in our sections).

73 de Jim, N2EY

"I'm the ARRL"

(and so is WK3C)

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ...
"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In no particular order:

1) Representation of amateur radio (what other organization or individual
would
do anyhting like the 121 page commentary on BPL?)

Representation of what the Board *perceives* to be the wishes of the
membership.
I don't believe that non-members get the same attention on issues as
members, but
that is reasonable, since member dues support the ARRL.

This member supports the ARRL. Also, this member did not receive a
questionare when the ARRL was conducting a poll of members and
non-members.

2) QST and other publications (only the RSGB Handbook is comparable)

QST has gotten better, with the dropping of a lot of the contest data and
more
focus on a range of articles from beginner to expert level. I'd like to see
more
technical focus on modern stuff and fewer articles on building regen
receivers
with tubes, though.

Memory lane.

3) Contests and operating activities (particularly SS and FD)

I'm not a contester, but sponsoring such activities is fine (glad they're
not using valuable QST pages for data dumps of results, though ... the
website is a much better venue for that info).

The CQWW magazine regularly presents information on the modernizing of
the ARS, and even has space to present contest information.

4) Product reviews (much more in-depth than any other amateur publication)

The lab does a great job on product reviews.

Ditto.

5) Elected officials (they listen even if they don't agree)

YMMV, depending on what area you live in, whether your Director is
open-minded and progressive, etc.

Apparently they think that they cannot present the needs or want of
both camps until they come to a concensus.

6) W1AW (been there and operated the station, too)

I have mixed views on the value of W1AW ... a good museum to "the Old Man,"
but perhaps its services could be provided by alternative means at lower
operating cost.

Commercial gear? Why?

Having said all of that, I'll now surprise some of you who have accused me
of being
an "ARRL-hater" (not saying that Jim has made that accusation).

I recently paid the $975 fee and am now a Life Member of the ARRL.

While I've had, and may continue to have, disagreements on some aspects of
policy with the ARRL Board, I recognize that the ARRL does do a LOT of
good things for the ARS and, in addition to my previous contribution to the
BPL
fund, I wanted to support the organization's good works (I can always
continue
to fight with them on areas of disagreement :-)

I don't disagree that the ARRL is a valuable organization in the US,
and I will continue to support it. However, when it comes to the
future of the ARS, I'd rather stand before the FCC and handle my views
all by myself.

73,
Carl - wk3c

Carl, you should see the NCI bashing being done by Dee and Jim on the
other ARRL thread.

73, Brian

"Brian" wrote in message
om...
Carl, you should see the NCI bashing being done by Dee and Jim on the
other ARRL thread.

73, Brian

I have never bashed the NCI. I've stated that I disagree with their goal
but that does not constitute bashing them.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 16:12:40 -0000, Carl R. Stevenson wrote:

QST has gotten better, with the dropping of a lot of the contest data
and more focus on a range of articles from beginner to expert level.
I'd like to see more technical focus on modern stuff and fewer
articles on building regen receivers with tubes, though.

Yeah, Nuvistors are getting hard to get.

How about reprints of memorable articles from yesteryear? Two from
the 1950s which are still applicable today for every class of licensee
come to mind:

"Guys for Guys Who Have to Guy" (a basic paper on guyed towers)
"Over the Hills and Far Away" (ditto on tropo propagation)

How many of the "frequent poster" club here read them when they
first came out or even some time later?

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

Dee D. Flint wrote:

"Brian" wrote in message
om...

Carl, you should see the NCI bashing being done by Dee and Jim on the
other ARRL thread.

73, Brian


I have never bashed the NCI. I've stated that I disagree with their goal
but that does not constitute bashing them.

I have! I think that they have recieved what they wanted, but as yet
don't really offer anything of substance to fill the gap. Instead, some
members express "unofficial opinions that scare the bejabbers out of me.

Always have an encore ready.

- Mike KB3EIA -

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

"Brian" wrote in message
om...
Carl, you should see the NCI bashing being done by Dee and Jim on the
other ARRL thread.

73, Brian

I have never bashed the NCI. I've stated that I disagree with their goal
but that does not constitute bashing them.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

I agree with Dee. I see "commentary", not any
bashing. Freedom to discuss differing
viewpoints. That's all.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK, NCI Director

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
. ..
Dee D. Flint wrote:

"Brian" wrote in message
om...

Carl, you should see the NCI bashing being done by Dee and Jim on the
other ARRL thread.

73, Brian


I have never bashed the NCI. I've stated that I disagree with their
goal
but that does not constitute bashing them.

I have! I think that they have recieved what they wanted, but as yet
don't really offer anything of substance to fill the gap.

What GAP?

Instead, some
members express "unofficial opinions that scare the bejabbers out of me.

"Some members"? Who? It is always easy to make non-speciifc
accusations against unidentified "some members".

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"Brian" wrote in message
om...
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...
"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In no particular order:

1) Representation of amateur radio (what other organization or
individual
would
do anyhting like the 121 page commentary on BPL?)

Representation of what the Board *perceives* to be the wishes of the
membership.
I don't believe that non-members get the same attention on issues as
members, but
that is reasonable, since member dues support the ARRL.

This member supports the ARRL. Also, this member did not receive a
questionare when the ARRL was conducting a poll of members and
non-members.

Perhaps they did a random survey of some percentage of the membership?

5) Elected officials (they listen even if they don't agree)

YMMV, depending on what area you live in, whether your Director is
open-minded and progressive, etc.

Apparently they think that they cannot present the needs or want of
both camps until they come to a concensus.

The "c-word" is an excuse to do nothing. On some things there may
never be consensus - should the ARRL do nothing? Leadership is
when one has the courage and wisdom to make a sound judgement
and then "do the right thing." 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 ...

6) W1AW (been there and operated the station, too)

I have mixed views on the value of W1AW ... a good museum to "the Old
Man,"
but perhaps its services could be provided by alternative means at lower
operating cost.

Commercial gear? Why?

Perhaps you misunderstand ... first, W1AW is running commercial gear (and
has for
many years). I believe the current main transmitters are super-commercial
gear from
Harris Corp., if memory serves me correctly, suplimented by some other
commercial
gear donated by some or all of "the big 4" ham equipment mfgrs.

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 ...)

Carl, you should see the NCI bashing being done by Dee and Jim on the
other ARRL thread.

I have been on business travel to the ITU in Geneva for two weeks and to New
Orleans for a week of meetings and haven't been keeping up.

Let them bash ... NCI continues to gain new members (and the pace picked up
quite dramatically with all of the publicity surrounding the Petitions
before the
FCC); the membership is, judging by the large number of e-mails I get, happy
with our policies and actions and ready to continue to support NCI through
the
end-game; and our detractors still haven't presented the FCC with a single
rational,
valid, compelling reason to keep any Morse testing ...

73,
Carl - wk3c

"Phil Kane" wrote in message
et...
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 16:12:40 -0000, Carl R. Stevenson wrote:

QST has gotten better, with the dropping of a lot of the contest data
and more focus on a range of articles from beginner to expert level.
I'd like to see more technical focus on modern stuff and fewer
articles on building regen receivers with tubes, though.

Yeah, Nuvistors are getting hard to get.

And even half-a**ed decent transistors can blow their performance away,
with better ones being worlds better.

My point is essentially that, IMHO, there is too much "nostalgia" and
"let's go back to the past" content in QST. I'd prefer a more bleeding
edge "let's push into the future" approach myself.

How about reprints of memorable articles from yesteryear? Two from
the 1950s which are still applicable today for every class of licensee
come to mind:

"Guys for Guys Who Have to Guy" (a basic paper on guyed towers)
"Over the Hills and Far Away" (ditto on tropo propagation)

Some articles are ageless ... I agree with the idea of occasionally
reprinting
classics that are still applicable ... or making a compendium of them
available
on a CD-ROM might be an even better approach.

How many of the "frequent poster" club here read them when they
first came out or even some time later?

I don't recall them by title, but I probably read them ... my high school
had an extensive collection of QSTs and I spend most of my study hall
time signed out to the library reading QST ... I think I'd read every copy
they had in the collection by the time I graduated in 1967.

73,
Carl - wk3c

Bill Sohl wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
. ..

Dee D. Flint wrote:


"Brian" wrote in message
e.com...


Carl, you should see the NCI bashing being done by Dee and Jim on the
other ARRL thread.

73, Brian


I have never bashed the NCI. I've stated that I disagree with their

goal

but that does not constitute bashing them.

I have! I think that they have recieved what they wanted, but as yet
don't really offer anything of substance to fill the gap.


What GAP?

Code test dissapears, nothing in it's place. I want to see something in
it's place, or else itis pretty hard to argue that it hasn't been made
much much easier to get a license.

You may want it made much easier to get a license, but I don't. Not a
filter, not a way of keeping people out. just a way of ensuring that the
amateur has some level of acumen.

Otherwise, those who want little or no testing are just encouraged.





Instead, some
members express "unofficial opinions that scare the bejabbers out of me.


"Some members"? Who? It is always easy to make non-speciifc
accusations against unidentified "some members".

W5YI for one. I trust you have read his work?

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Mike Coslo" wrote

Code test dissapears, nothing in it's place. I want to see something in
it's place, or else itis pretty hard to argue that it hasn't been made
much much easier to get a license.

Siince the Novice license was discontinued, it has become more difficult to
become an amateur.

Not a filter, not a way of keeping people out. just a way
of ensuring that the amateur has some level of acumen.

I don't hold the opinion that the Morse test established that the applicant
has any "level of acumen" (check with Funk and Wagnalls before you respond).

In the world of Amateur Radio there are users and tinkerers. We need more
tinkerers, not more users.

73, de Hans, K0HB

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...

Carl, you should see the NCI bashing being done by Dee and Jim on the
other ARRL thread.

I have been on business travel to the ITU in Geneva for two weeks and to
New
Orleans for a week of meetings and haven't been keeping up.

Let them bash ... NCI continues to gain new members (and the pace picked
up
quite dramatically with all of the publicity surrounding the Petitions
before the
FCC); the membership is, judging by the large number of e-mails I get,
happy
with our policies and actions and ready to continue to support NCI through
the
end-game; and our detractors still haven't presented the FCC with a single
rational,
valid, compelling reason to keep any Morse testing ...

73,
Carl - wk3c


Carl, just a gentle reminder. I do not bash the NCI but merely disagree
with its goals.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Phil Kane" wrote in message . net...
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 16:12:40 -0000, Carl R. Stevenson wrote:

QST has gotten better, with the dropping of a lot of the contest data
and more focus on a range of articles from beginner to expert level.
I'd like to see more technical focus on modern stuff and fewer
articles on building regen receivers with tubes, though.

Yeah, Nuvistors are getting hard to get.

Last time a construction article with Nuvistors in it was when?
Probably 1965 or so. Almost 40 years.

There's an on-line index of QST, QEX and ham radio at the ARRL
website. Searchable by keyword, author, date, author callsign, all
sorts of stuff.

How about reprints of memorable articles from yesteryear? Two from
the 1950s which are still applicable today for every class of licensee
come to mind:

"Guys for Guys Who Have to Guy" (a basic paper on guyed towers)
"Over the Hills and Far Away" (ditto on tropo propagation)

How many of the "frequent poster" club here read them when they
first came out or even some time later?

I've read them - first time probably 30+ years ago. At least a few
times since then, too.

Lots of other classics. Having a QST collection helps. ;-)

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ...
"Brian" wrote in message
om...
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...
"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In no particular order:

1) Representation of amateur radio (what other organization or
individual
would
do anyhting like the 121 page commentary on BPL?)

Representation of what the Board *perceives* to be the wishes of the
membership.
I don't believe that non-members get the same attention on issues as
members, but
that is reasonable, since member dues support the ARRL.

This member supports the ARRL. Also, this member did not receive a
questionare when the ARRL was conducting a poll of members and
non-members.

Perhaps they did a random survey of some percentage of the membership?

They hired READEX to do a survey. It was supposedly a scientific
sample of the membership.

That was 1996.

5) Elected officials (they listen even if they don't agree)

YMMV, depending on what area you live in, whether your Director is
open-minded and progressive, etc.

Apparently they think that they cannot present the needs or want of
both camps until they come to a concensus.

The "c-word" is an excuse to do nothing.

No, it isn't. And it's spelled "consensus", as WK3C demonstrates.

The "c-word" came into use because FCC said some years ago that they
weren't going to do any serious restructuring until the amateur radio
community came up with a consensus on what they wanted. That policy
was quite visibly abandoned in 1998 when FCC issued an NPRM without
any consensus being evident.

On some things there may
never be consensus - should the ARRL do nothing?

Depends on the issue and how close to a consensus exists. There's a
world of difference between a 90% majority and a 51% majority, for
example.

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? 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"?

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"?

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?


6) W1AW (been there and operated the station, too)

I have mixed views on the value of W1AW ... a good museum to "the Old
Man,"
but perhaps its services could be provided by alternative means at lower
operating cost.

Commercial gear? Why?

Perhaps you misunderstand ... first, W1AW is running commercial gear (and
has for
many years). I believe the current main transmitters are super-commercial
gear from
Harris Corp., if memory serves me correctly, suplimented by some other
commercial
gear donated by some or all of "the big 4" ham equipment mfgrs.

The transmitters (actually transceivers) used for bulletins and code
practice are Harris units. They are stock items. They were chosen for
that service because they were capable of total computer control and
because they were judged to be rugged enough for W1AW service.
Remember that the W1AW modernization was done more than a few years
ago, so you have to look at what was available then, not now.

The supplemental guest stations are for general operating and
contesting, and are not used when the bulletin/code practice sessions
are being run.

Homebrew transmitters *were* considered - that had been the standard
W1AW setup since the station was first put on the air more than 65
years ago. But the cost of paying staff members to design and build
such rigs was calculated to be greater than the cost of the Harris
units.

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.

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......

Carl, you should see the NCI bashing being done by Dee and Jim on the
other ARRL thread.

It would be interesting to see whether Carl considers my comments
"bashing"...

Let them bash ... NCI continues to gain new members (and the pace picked up
quite dramatically with all of the publicity surrounding the Petitions
before the
FCC); the membership is, judging by the large number of e-mails I get, happy
with our policies and actions and ready to continue to support NCI through
the end-game;

And there are how many of them? ;-)

What percentage of US hams do they comprise? ;-)

Point is, the whole "consensus" thing is history. FCC is deciding by
different criteria now.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ...
"Phil Kane" wrote in message
et...
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 16:12:40 -0000, Carl R. Stevenson wrote:

QST has gotten better, with the dropping of a lot of the contest data
and more focus on a range of articles from beginner to expert level.
I'd like to see more technical focus on modern stuff and fewer
articles on building regen receivers with tubes, though.

Yeah, Nuvistors are getting hard to get.

And even half-a**ed decent transistors can blow their performance away,
with better ones being worlds better.

The most recent construction article in QST using Nuvistors was when?

My point is essentially that, IMHO, there is too much "nostalgia" and
"let's go back to the past" content in QST.

I disagree. There's a good mix now.

I'd prefer a more bleeding
edge "let's push into the future" approach myself.

Then write some articles about stuff you'd like to see there. Look at
the bylines of QST construction articles - most of them aren't by
staffers. They're written by hams - like me.

Remember that one of the biggest complaints readers had about QST in
the past was that it was "too technical". So QEX was started, and the
more technical stuff migrated there.

How about reprints of memorable articles from yesteryear? Two from
the 1950s which are still applicable today for every class of licensee
come to mind:

"Guys for Guys Who Have to Guy" (a basic paper on guyed towers)
"Over the Hills and Far Away" (ditto on tropo propagation)

Some articles are ageless ... I agree with the idea of occasionally
reprinting
classics that are still applicable ... or making a compendium of them
available
on a CD-ROM might be an even better approach.

Problem is, such a compendium would compete with the QST CD-ROMs. But
it's still a good idea.

I'd really like to see old and rare ARRL publications on CD-ROM, both
for historic and fund-raising reasons.

How many of the "frequent poster" club here read them when they
first came out or even some time later?

I did. And almost every other QST article since - well, you don't
really want to know how far back....

I don't recall them by title, but I probably read them ... my high school
had an extensive collection of QSTs and I spend most of my study hall
time signed out to the library reading QST ... I think I'd read every copy
they had in the collection by the time I graduated in 1967.

How far back did they go?

73 de Jim, N2EY

"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

"N2EY" wrote


Last time a construction article with Nuvistors in it was when?
Probably 1965 or so. Almost 40 years.


The current issue of QST has some really up-to-date-technology in it, not
quite Nuvistors, but well beyond spark.

For example, a full length article on how important the quartz crystal
industry was to winning the war. (WW-II, that is!)

Or another full length article on bringing a DX-100 AM transmitter (1955
era) up to factory spec.

Or how about the leading edge article on restoring a 1948 wooden-chassis
homebrew 2-tube transmitter?

Hang around, and pretty soon -- perhaps within the decade -- we'll get up to
Nuvistor technology!

73, de Hans, K0HB

PS: I almost forgot to mention, there's also some tantalizing information
in this issue about panoramic reception, developed in 1932 by F3HM. Maybe
it'll catch on!

"N2EY" wrote in message
om...
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...
"Phil Kane" wrote in message
et...
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 16:12:40 -0000, Carl R. Stevenson wrote:

QST has gotten better, with the dropping of a lot of the contest data
and more focus on a range of articles from beginner to expert level.
I'd like to see more technical focus on modern stuff and fewer
articles on building regen receivers with tubes, though.

Yeah, Nuvistors are getting hard to get.

And even half-a**ed decent transistors can blow their performance away,
with better ones being worlds better.

The most recent construction article in QST using Nuvistors was when?

Ask Phil, he's the one who mentioned them :-) Seriously, I think it was in
the
60's ... but I don't think tube projects have much relevance any more,
except,
perhaps for amplifiers, and you know how I feel about QRO ...

How many of the "frequent poster" club here read them when they
first came out or even some time later?

I did. And almost every other QST article since - well, you don't
really want to know how far back....

I don't recall them by title, but I probably read them ... my high
school
had an extensive collection of QSTs and I spend most of my study hall
time signed out to the library reading QST ... I think I'd read every
copy
they had in the collection by the time I graduated in 1967.

How far back did they go?

I honestly don't remember ... but well back into the 50's IIRC.

73,
Carl - wk3c

"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

"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

In article .net, "KØHB"
writes:

"Mike Coslo" wrote

Code test dissapears, nothing in it's place. I want to see something in
it's place, or else itis pretty hard to argue that it hasn't been made
much much easier to get a license.

Siince the Novice license was discontinued, it has become more difficult to
become an amateur.

That means passing the post-restructuring 35 question Tech test is "more
difficult" (YMMV on what constitutes "more difficult") than passing both the
pre-restructuring 30 question Novice test *and* the 5 wpm code receiving test.

Sunuvagun!

Not a filter, not a way of keeping people out. just a way
of ensuring that the amateur has some level of acumen.

I don't hold the opinion that the Morse test established that the applicant
has any "level of acumen" (check with Funk and Wagnalls before you respond).

Nor does the written test....

In the world of Amateur Radio there are users and tinkerers. We need more
tinkerers, not more users.

Have the changes of 2000 gotten us more tinkerers per unit time than before?

73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote


That means passing the post-restructuring 35 question Tech test is "more
difficult" than passing both the pre-restructuring 30 question Novice
test *and* the 5 wpm code receiving test.


Yes. (But only barely, and it is woefully inadequate for the resultant
privileges.)


Have the changes of 2000 gotten us more tinkerers per unit time than
before?


What the hell are "tinkerers per unit time"? The generally accepted
language of rrap is English.

73, de Hans, K0HB

In article .net, "KØHB"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote


Last time a construction article with Nuvistors in it was when?
Probably 1965 or so. Almost 40 years.

The current issue of QST has some really up-to-date-technology in it, not
quite Nuvistors, but well beyond spark.

Yep. It's the annual "vintage radio" issue. Says so right on the cover.

For example, a full length article on how important the quartz crystal
industry was to winning the war. (WW-II, that is!)

Yep. It's the annual "vintage radio" issue. Says so right on the cover. Radio
grade quartz was mined back then - today it's grown.

Or another full length article on bringing a DX-100 AM transmitter (1955
era) up to factory spec.

Yep. It's the annual "vintage radio" issue. Says so right on the cover.

The DX-100 was basically a bargain version of the Viking 2/ 122 VFO combo in
one box. Not as good, though. YMMV.

The article tells how a ham bought an old Heathkit rig on eBay, fixed it up,
and put it on the air. Looks like he had fun doing it, too. Rig was actually
Made In USA, and the present owner actually worked on it hisself. Very
electro-politically incorrect.

Or how about the leading edge article on restoring a 1948 wooden-chassis
homebrew 2-tube transmitter?

Yep. It's the annual "vintage radio" issue. Says so right on the cover.

The DX-100 was basically a bargain version of the Viking 2/ 122 VFO combo in
one box. Not as good, though. YMMV.

The article tells how a ham bought an old homebrew rig on eBay, fixed it up,
made a few modifications and put it on the air. Looks like he had fun doing it,
too. Rig was actually home-built by a ham - not even a kit. Parts were all Made
In USA, and the present owner actually worked on it hisself. And it puts out a
perfectly clean signal. Very, very electro-politically incorrect, though.

How dare these hams actually work on their own rigs! Next thing you know,
they'll be turning their backs on Ikensu....

Hang around, and pretty soon -- perhaps within the decade -- we'll get up to
Nuvistor technology!

PS: I almost forgot to mention, there's also some tantalizing information
in this issue about panoramic reception, developed in 1932 by F3HM. Maybe
it'll catch on!

I recall about a decade ago when the IC-781 appeared how gaga some folks were
over the display. As if nobody had ever done it before. Shades of the QS-59
receiver....

Also in the same issue of QST:

- Article on using a transmitter-receiver modules to eliminate the key cable
(tail wagging the dog..)

- 5 page article on the K1B Baker Island DXpedition

- Article on contesting as a "little pistol"

- Article on "casual" RTTY contesting

- "Short Takes" column on MultiPSK freeware package (does several flavors of
PSK, SSTV, RTTY, AMTOR, Hellschreiber, and (oh yes) CW

- 3-1/2 page article on building an AC wattmeter

- 2 page "Hands On Radio" column. This is #12 in a series - subject is FETs.

- 2 page "Hints and Kinks" column.

- 5 page review of the Ten Tec Orion

- 2 page review of the SGC add on audio DSP unit (ADSP2)

- Correspondence from Members, Happenings, Technical Correspondence, Public
Service, DX, Exam Info, World above 50 MHz, At The Foundation, Old Radio, YL
News, SKs, New Products, 75/50/25 years ago in QST, Contest and hamfest
calendars, W1AW schedule...

- Microwavelengths (Part 1 of an article about microwave LNAs - no nuvistors in
sight)

- Results of June VHF contest, School club Roundup, August UHF contest.

- and more. 160 pages this issue.

How many articles of cutting-edge technology have you submitted?

73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote


Yep. It's the annual "vintage radio" issue. Says so right on the cover.


Thank you, Thank You, THANK YOU!!! You make my point exactly!!!

I'm very much an ARRL supporter, but an "Annual Vintage Radio Issue" is a
pathetic statement about the technical leadership out of 225 Main Street.
Sorta validates LHA's persistent jeremiads about how backward amateurs seem
to him. How much nicer if there were an "Annual Future Systems Issue".

73, de Hans, K0HB

KØHB wrote:

"Mike Coslo" wrote


Code test dissapears, nothing in it's place. I want to see something in
it's place, or else itis pretty hard to argue that it hasn't been made
much much easier to get a license.


Siince the Novice license was discontinued, it has become more difficult to
become an amateur.

really? The most difficult thing for me in Amateur Radio was to learn
Morse code. It would have taken me just as long to get a Novice as it
would to get my General ticket.


Not a filter, not a way of keeping people out. just a way
of ensuring that the amateur has some level of acumen.


I don't hold the opinion that the Morse test established that the applicant
has any "level of acumen" (check with Funk and Wagnalls before you respond).

acumen: keenness and depth of perception, discernment, or discrimination
especially in practical matters.

Sounds good to me Hans, although it was from Merriam Webster, not Funk
and Wagnalls. Any other corrections to make to my posts?

I'm a firm believer that we need to ensure that the prospective amateur
is *interested* in the hobby. No question to me that the old Morse code
test went some way towards that. That's not a filter. Making a
prospective ham have to stand up against a tree while other hams throw
eggs at him/her before a license is issued is a filter.

The Morse code is almost certainly going away. I don't really give a
good rat's backside about it. So now we are arguing about whatever word
you want to use instead of acumen. I desire more, and you appear to
desire less.

In the world of Amateur Radio there are users and tinkerers. We need more
tinkerers, not more users.

Well we aren't heading that way!

- Mike KB3EIA -

Carl R. Stevenson wrote:

"Brian" wrote in message
om...

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message

...

"N2EY" wrote in message
...

In no particular order:

1) Representation of amateur radio (what other organization or

individual

would

do anyhting like the 121 page commentary on BPL?)

Representation of what the Board *perceives* to be the wishes of the
membership.
I don't believe that non-members get the same attention on issues as
members, but
that is reasonable, since member dues support the ARRL.

This member supports the ARRL. Also, this member did not receive a
questionare when the ARRL was conducting a poll of members and
non-members.


Perhaps they did a random survey of some percentage of the membership?


5) Elected officials (they listen even if they don't agree)

YMMV, depending on what area you live in, whether your Director is
open-minded and progressive, etc.

Apparently they think that they cannot present the needs or want of
both camps until they come to a concensus.


The "c-word" is an excuse to do nothing.

No it doesn't. I've used consensus building for years. I don't do it
unless a decision *needs* to be made. I even use it in situations where
I have absolute dictatorial power, such as on my Ice Hockey team. I find
out what the guys think on a lot of the issues. Then as long as it makes
sense, and is within the rules I'll decide what they like. You'd be
surprised how well they listen to you when they *need* to when you
listen to them when you *should*.

Other BOD activities I've been involved in are run the same way -
although I don't have absolute power there! 8^)

On some things there may
never be consensus - should the ARRL do nothing? Leadership is
when one has the courage and wisdom to make a sound judgement
and then "do the right thing."

Sure, ya have to do that sometimes. Problem is that if you use that
courage and wisdom in the wrong way, you can find yourself on the
outside pretty quickly. Then you're a leader with no flock. No leader at
all.

Otherwise, they could just do a web vote

familiar with web voting?

popularity contest on every issue and wouldn't need Directors ... the
staff could handle the whole thing ...

Leaders get usually get elected or appointed or whatever because they
have some values that appeal to those who are to be governed. The most
successful leaders I know ask for and get as much input as they can when
faced with decisions. Figuring that you know the answers and what you
know is right regardless is hubris.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Carl R. Stevenson wrote:

"Phil Kane" wrote in message
et...

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 16:12:40 -0000, Carl R. Stevenson wrote:


QST has gotten better, with the dropping of a lot of the contest data
and more focus on a range of articles from beginner to expert level.
I'd like to see more technical focus on modern stuff and fewer
articles on building regen receivers with tubes, though.

Yeah, Nuvistors are getting hard to get.


And even half-a**ed decent transistors can blow their performance away,
with better ones being worlds better.

My point is essentially that, IMHO, there is too much "nostalgia" and
"let's go back to the past" content in QST. I'd prefer a more bleeding
edge "let's push into the future" approach myself.

I really enjoy the old timey stories. And I'm not an old time ham,
being first licensed in fall of 1998.

And you might think of writing some articles. (forgive if you already
have, I've only read QST for a short time now)

I'd love to see cutting edge stuff, although I would prefer emphasis on
RF instead of digital.

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...


Bill Sohl wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
. ..

Dee D. Flint wrote:

"Brian" wrote in message
e.com...

Carl, you should see the NCI bashing being done by Dee and Jim on the
other ARRL thread.

73, Brian


I have never bashed the NCI. I've stated that I disagree with their
goal

but that does not constitute bashing them.

I have! I think that they have recieved what they wanted, but as yet
don't really offer anything of substance to fill the gap.


What GAP?

Code test dissapears, nothing in it's place.

Why should there be anything in its place? This isn't about
some mystical quantification of effort, dedication, yada yada....
The morse tests have completely disappeared for General
and Extra without anything taking its place. If 5 wpm is dropped
for tech, why should there be something to replace it?

I want to see something in
it's place, or else itis pretty hard to argue that it hasn't been made
much much easier to get a license.

Ending a requirement that no longer has a rational need
does not translate into a search for some "replacement".
If you had the opportunity to state what the replacement
should be, what would you suggest?

You may want it made much easier to get a license, but I don't. Not a
filter, not a way of keeping people out. just a way of ensuring that the
amateur has some level of acumen.

Ending morse doesn't change the level of written tests.

Otherwise, those who want little or no testing are just encouraged.

Encouraged about what?

Instead, some
members express "unofficial opinions that scare the bejabbers out of me.

"Some members"? Who? It is always easy to make non-speciifc
accusations against unidentified "some members".

W5YI for one. I trust you have read his work?

W5YI's comments as to testing issues beyond the elimination
of code testing are NOT, in any way, shape or form,
the position or opinion of NCI.

As to other NCI members, assuming you can ID someone,
they too may have a personal belief as to how testing should go...
but that does NOT make their opinions or beliefs NCI
doctrine.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK