|
Mike Coslo wrote in message ...
William wrote: "Dee D. Flint" wrote in message igy.com... "William" wrote in message .com... "Dee D. Flint" wrote in message igy.com... Old timers dropping out will not do a thing. There are enough new people coming in that they won't even notice. Instead we will be left with an even more unbalanced viewpoint. Depends on your point of view. I'm going to encourage more cranky old hams to drop out. Although new versus old does cause friction, the balance is still needed. The new bring fresh enthusiasm and new ideas. The old have the experience to weigh these ideas and modify them so they will work or to spot ideas that have been tried in the past and known to fail. We need both old and new. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE Here we go again with the demographics. The ARS is a geriatric service. Too bad they took the birth date out of the database. She's *kind* of right, Brian. I'd modify it that the oldsters should be the helpful type, not the ones spitting bile about how awful or stupid everyone is anymore. 8^) I really enjoy talking with old timers about ham radio and radio in general as long as I don't get an earful of vitriol. - Mike KB3EIA - I kind of miss W0EX. |
"William" wrote in message om... I kind of miss W0EX. Funny you should say that. I was just looking at his QSL card wondering how he is. I sent him a few e-mails to both addresses known to work...and no reply. Hope he's ok. 73 de Bert WA2SI |
Bert Craig wrote:
Funny you should say that. I was just looking at his QSL card wondering how he is. I sent him a few e-mails to both addresses known to work...and no reply. Hope he's ok. Speaking of QSL cards, I just received one today from the 5 land qsl burro from an OH station in Finland I worked on September 26, *1981*. Better late than never I suppose. |
In article , Leo
writes: On 25 Jan 2004 20:30:20 GMT, (N2EY) wrote: extra credit trivia question: where does the term "wing it" come from? Hint: Has nothing to do with aviation. From the theatre, where impromptu performances were given by actors who received prompts from the wings. BINGO! Hey, this guy's good! 73 de Jim, N2EY |
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes: "N2EY" wrote in message ... In article , "Carl R. Stevenson" writes: The ham bands have *not* "become sounding like CB over the last 17 years" - Not the CW/digital subbands, anyway. The 'phone bands are another story... I haven't seen it ... and you know I don't choose to operate CW. So you really don't know, then. YMMV ... but I doubt it's the broad reality. Why? If you don't operate CW, what facts drive that doubt? Could it be that you don't want to say *anything* about the mode's advantages over other modes, for fear that doing so could somehow justify a test? there have always been a few bad apples - MANY of them OTs who passed the 20 wpm Morse test and believe they are some sort of gods. SOME of them, anyway. But ALL of them passed the written tests, too. So? So one of the main purposes of the written tests is to insure knowledge of the rules and regs. I think it's a given that NO test filters out lids ... I disagree! No test filters out *all* violators. But well designed testing can help reduce violations. Otherwise, what's the point of testing, if it doesn't reduce violations? no way to fix that. Bad behavior is an enforcement issue, not something that can be dealt with "up front" through licensing requirements. Faulty premise! While no test can be a perfect "filter", well designed testing can reduce violations by making sure that those tested know the rules and what constitutes a violation, and by requiring an "investment" of themselves to join the amateur community. Of course enforcement is needed. But even with very low levels of enforcement, most amateurs follow the rules. Yet in another service (cb), the level of rules compliance has been historically much lower, even with much higher levels of enforcement. Or, to put it simply: If tests don't have an effect on rules compliance, why have tests at all? The "21st Century" paper(NOT the ARRL proposal!) proposes that the entry-level license test have few or no "radio law" questions! [snip] So tell us what you think of the ARRL proposal, Carl. We already know about the code test, so let's just skip that part. What do you think of: My *personal* views, NOT necessarily "NCI policy" ... 1) the "NewNovice" idea? (easy entry-level exam, limited power, more HF modes and spectrum, less VHF/UHF) Good idea ... we need to give newcomers a better taste of all of ham radio. Power restrictions make sense, and I don't see a big enforcement issue - the Novice license had power restrictions and I don't believe that ever presented a real problem. Exactly - in fact, a whole series of manufactured, kit and homebrew rigs were developed to meet that power limit. 2) closing Tech to new issues? OK by me, given a more sensible beginner class license as proposed. 3) free upgrades for Techs and Tech Pluses to General? I was initially against this idea, thinking that taking the additional written element should be a requirement. However, I've read Ed Hare's excellent *personal, not ARRL policy* comments on this from eham, and find that they make sense to me - a compelling case for a "one-shot adjustment" to make things clean in a way that nobody loses anything. Link, please? See also other post in this thread. Nobody loses anything if Tech, Tech Plus and Advanced stay just as they are, or maybe Techs and Tech Pluses get the sum of their existing privs and those of the "NewNovice", rather than a free upgrade to General. Consider the practical ramifications of this free upgrade stuff. Suppose FCC sez yes to the ARRL proposal just as written except for the 5 wpm Extra test. From what you write, it sounds like you'd support that. And suppose they announced that effective June 1, the new rules would go into effect. This would give time to formulate a new question pool for the NewNovice, etc. (Or pick some other date if you don't like June 1). Anyone interested in getting a ham license, or any existing Novices, would have a big incentive to get a Tech between now and May 31, because on June 1 they'd get a freebie upgrade. And anyone who already has a Tech, Tech Plus or Advanced would have a *disincentive* to upgrade, because they'd be getting a free ride come June 1 anyway. The first group totals maybe 50,000 people, tops, and probably a lot less. The second group totals over 322,000. 4) free upgrades for Advanceds to Extra? As #3 above ... Ed's argument are pretty persuasive if you think them through with an open mind. Let the readers be the judge of that, please. Perhaps a stronger case can be made for Advanced because it's been closed off for almost 4 years now. The tests between Tech/General and Advanced/Extra are *really* not ALL that different ... Then you are arguing that they're not needed. You may not see it that way, but others will. Remember how you wanted me to be quiet on this subject some time back? Now you're unintentionally promoting it! If someone can get a Tech on May 31 and then get a free upgrade to General on June 1, doesn't that *prove* there's nothing essential in the General test? Why not just dump the General test and use the existing Tech test for General, if someone who only passed Tech can get a free upgrade? 5) widening of some of the 'phone image subbands? While I've stated many times that I would not support wholesale proliferation of SSB/SSTV to the detriment of CW/digital modes, the "refarming" of the (largely unused) "Novice bands" as proposed, If you choose not to use CW, how do you know they're largely unused? is modest and I can tolerate it ... if it doesn't happen, the proposal can be tweaked a bit to allow for the increased access to HF for the "new Novices". Part of the whole NewNovice concept is lots more HF access. The problem with widening the US phone bands is more than just the obvious reduction of CW/digital space. Foreign 'phones tend to hang out below the US 'phone subbands to avoid high power US 'phone QRM (as you know, most countries don't allow as much power as the USA). So widening the US phone bands will push the DX 'phones further into the CW/digital subbands. I say 1) and 2) are good ideas. The rest are bad ideas. What say you? As I said above. Note again, these are my *personal* views after considering Ed's excellent and persuasive explaination of why he supports the proposal (of course, Ed knows that I will NOT support keeping code testing for Extra). Well, I'm sure we;d all like to see that "excellent and persuasive explanation". Because I sure can't see what the downside is of simply keeping the Advanced as it is, and letting Techs and Tech Pluses have their exisitng privs plus whatever "NewNovices" get. 73 de Jim, N2EY 73 de Jim, N2EY |
N2EY wrote:
In article .net, "KØHB" writes: "Carl R. Stevenson" wrote | 3) free upgrades for Techs and Tech Pluses to General? | | I was initially against this idea, thinking that taking the additional | written element should be a requirement. However, I've read | Ed Hare's excellent *personal, not ARRL policy* comments | on this from eham, and find that they make sense to me - a | compelling case for a "one-shot adjustment" to | make things clean in a way that nobody loses anything. I haven't seen Ed Hare's argument, so I can't comment on it. Me neither - can you post a link? If the "adjustment" were some minor clean-up to sweep up the remnants of a long abandoned legacy class and the number of licenses involved was trivial (under 10,000), then I'd have no problem with it. But we aren't dealing with some trival number, we are dealing with almost 2/3rds of existing licensees. ?? Let's see - as of January 15, 2004: Novice - 32,718 Technician - 259,949 Technician Plus - 62,714 General - 141,443 Advanced - 81,961 Extra - 104,946 Total - 683,731 Total Technicians and Pluses: 322,663 322,663/683,731 = about 47.2% of existing hams getting a free upgrade to General 81,961/683,731 = about 11.9% of existing hams getting a free upgrade to Extra Total of about 59.1% getting a free upgrade - wow! Too bad no one saw that coming, eh? The message ARRL sends with this proposal is "our General (and Extra) qualifications" are more strenuous than need be. Such a free-pass would establish that all these hundreds of thousands of licensees have been qualified for General (or Extra) all along. At that moment it is established, ipso facto, that the current Technician examination is sufficient for the 'new General' and that the last Advanced examination is sufficient for the 'new Extra'. I agree 100%. And that's not the only message. Such giveaways also say that the tests are so difficult that existing hams cannot be reasonably expected to pass them on their own - but new hams have to! Up until now I have never raised the cry of "dumbing down", but such a mass give-away would set a new lower bar for all future qualification levels in the Amateur Radio service, and your position allegedly in support of strenuous technical qualification standards rings hollow indeed. Remember what I was talking about some weeks back, Hans - and Carl asked me to be quiet in case someone got the idea? Way to GO, Jim! *You* gave people that idea, and now you made a real mess for us! ;^) Wait, that really isn't funny, is it? There's no good reason I can see to give existing Techs, Tech Pluses and Advanceds a bye on the writtens for the next license class. No there isn't. But the reasons don't have to be good ones do they? - Mike KB3EIA - |
Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
I was initially against this idea, thinking that taking the additional written element should be a requirement. However, I've read Ed Hare's excellent *personal, not ARRL policy* comments on this from eham, and find that they make sense to me - a compelling case for a "one-shot adjustment" to make things clean in a way that nobody loses anything. Once upon a time you also wrote: I do not, and never will support the elimination or watering down of the written tests. I have stated over and over again that I personally feel they could be made better (where "better" and "more difficult" are not necessarily synonymous ...). (remember to point out that your quote is about the written tests, not giving around 60 percent of US Hams a free upgrade) Same difference. A one time adjustment? That really has to rank as one of the worst ideas that ever came down the pike! If the Technicians/now Generals can even be considered to receive the same privileges as the present Generals, how *Dare* the ARS or FCC even *think* of not making it a permanent thing? That isn't even slippery slope thinking either. The next batch of prospective hams will want to know why THEY can't get the privileges that the OTHERS got by simply being in the right place at the right time. What happens then? And did you know I BELIEVED you when you said that stuff I quoted from you? Disappointing. 8^( - Mike KB3EIA - |
On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 23:26:17 -0600, "Lloyd Davies The GREAT TIME LORD"
wrote: "So Phuk'em" wrote in message news:7HmQb.133575$I06.1201849@attbi_s01... All you old timers & O.M.'s, cancel your memberships! The ARRL board of directors and section managers are intent on destroying your enjoyment of the hobby and also in destroying the effectiveness of the service in times of national emergency. I'm sick at how the bands have become sounding like CB over the last 17 years, and the League is still intent on making things worse. So Phuk'em I have a completly different opinion! Join the ARRL today! There is no better time than now, to join the ONLY voice that Ham Radio has. If you don't like what you, Mr I have no balls, than turn your radio off! You are not helping anyone! Like I said, my membership had paid off!!!!!! You couldn't get on HF until it was given to you, lardass. |
On 27 Jan 2004 00:29:04 GMT, (N2EY) wrote:
In article , Leo writes: On 25 Jan 2004 20:30:20 GMT, (N2EY) wrote: extra credit trivia question: where does the term "wing it" come from? Hint: Has nothing to do with aviation. From the theatre, where impromptu performances were given by actors who received prompts from the wings. BINGO! Hey, this guy's good! Well, sometimes :) 73 de Jim, N2EY 73, Leo |
In article , Mike Coslo
writes: Carl R. Stevenson wrote: I was initially against this idea, thinking that taking the additional written element should be a requirement. However, I've read Ed Hare's excellent *personal, not ARRL policy* comments on this from eham, and find that they make sense to me - a compelling case for a "one-shot adjustment" to make things clean in a way that nobody loses anything. Once upon a time you also wrote: I do not, and never will support the elimination or watering down of the written tests. I have stated over and over again that I personally feel they could be made better (where "better" and "more difficult" are not necessarily synonymous ...). Doncha just love Google? (remember to point out that your quote is about the written tests, not giving around 60 percent of US Hams a free upgrade) Same difference. A one time adjustment? That really has to rank as one of the worst ideas that ever came down the pike! Not if there's a good reason for it - but so far I haven't seen a good reason. If the Technicians/now Generals can even be considered to receive the same privileges as the present Generals, how *Dare* the ARS or FCC even *think* of not making it a permanent thing? That isn't even slippery slope thinking either. The next batch of prospective hams will want to know why THEY can't get the privileges that the OTHERS got by simply being in the right place at the right time. What happens then? A lot of bad feelings, for one thing. To my knowedge there is no precedent for this sort of thing. And the primary question - what is the problem without the freebies? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
In article om, "Dee D.
Flint" writes: "N2EY" wrote in message ... In article om, "Dee D. Flint" writes: Although new versus old does cause friction, the balance is still needed. The new bring fresh enthusiasm and new ideas. The old have the experience to weigh these ideas and modify them so they will work or to spot ideas that have been tried in the past and known to fail. We need both old and new. Well said, Dee! There's also the need to recognize that newer is not always better, yet if you never try anyhting different you may never get anything different. "The art of progress is to preserve order amid change and to preserve change amid order." - Alfred North Whitehead 73 de Jim, N2EY The quote says it even better though. Agreed. That's why I included it. You would probably not believe where I first heard that quote, btw. 73 de Jim, N2EY "The art of progress is to preserve order amid change and to preserve change amid order." - Alfred North Whitehead |
In article , Mike Coslo
writes: Let's see - as of January 15, 2004: Novice - 32,718 Technician - 259,949 Technician Plus - 62,714 General - 141,443 Advanced - 81,961 Extra - 104,946 Total - 683,731 Total Technicians and Pluses: 322,663 322,663/683,731 = about 47.2% of existing hams getting a free upgrade to General 81,961/683,731 = about 11.9% of existing hams getting a free upgrade to Extra Total of about 59.1% getting a free upgrade - wow! Too bad no one saw that coming, eh? I'm sure it's a big part of the plan. The message ARRL sends with this proposal is "our General (and Extra) qualifications" are more strenuous than need be. Such a free-pass would establish that all these hundreds of thousands of licensees have been qualified for General (or Extra) all along. At that moment it is established, ipso facto, that the current Technician examination is sufficient for the 'new General' and that the last Advanced examination is sufficient for the 'new Extra'. I agree 100%. And that's not the only message. Such giveaways also say that the tests are so difficult that existing hams cannot be reasonably expected to pass them on their own - but new hams have to! "Do as I say, not as I do" Up until now I have never raised the cry of "dumbing down", but such a mass give-away would set a new lower bar for all future qualification levels in the Amateur Radio service, and your position allegedly in support of strenuous technical qualification standards rings hollow indeed. Remember what I was talking about some weeks back, Hans - and Carl asked me to be quiet in case someone got the idea? Way to GO, Jim! *You* gave people that idea, and now you made a real mess for us! ;^) Wait, that really isn't funny, is it? ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED??!!! Actually, it wasn't my idea. I'm simply the messenger. Others though it up long before me. There's no good reason I can see to give existing Techs, Tech Pluses and Advanceds a bye on the writtens for the next license class. No there isn't. But the reasons don't have to be good ones do they? Exactly. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"JJ" wrote in message
... Bert Craig wrote: Funny you should say that. I was just looking at his QSL card wondering how he is. I sent him a few e-mails to both addresses known to work...and no reply. Hope he's ok. Speaking of QSL cards, I just received one today from the 5 land qsl burro from an OH station in Finland I worked on September 26, *1981*. Better late than never I suppose. Wow, and I just recently received one from a 2/03 QSO...and I thought THAT was an unreasonably long time. hihi 73 de Bert WA2SI |
N2EY wrote: In article , Mike Coslo writes: Carl R. Stevenson wrote: I was initially against this idea, thinking that taking the additional written element should be a requirement. However, I've read Ed Hare's excellent *personal, not ARRL policy* comments on this from eham, and find that they make sense to me - a compelling case for a "one-shot adjustment" to make things clean in a way that nobody loses anything. Once upon a time you also wrote: I do not, and never will support the elimination or watering down of the written tests. I have stated over and over again that I personally feel they could be made better (where "better" and "more difficult" are not necessarily synonymous ...). Doncha just love Google? You betchya! Everyone slips up from time to time, and I don't like to use it to catch people in little mistakes, but this one is right from Burger King! A Whopper! (remember to point out that your quote is about the written tests, not giving around 60 percent of US Hams a free upgrade) Same difference. A one time adjustment? That really has to rank as one of the worst ideas that ever came down the pike! Not if there's a good reason for it - but so far I haven't seen a good reason. If the Technicians/now Generals can even be considered to receive the same privileges as the present Generals, how *Dare* the ARS or FCC even *think* of not making it a permanent thing? That isn't even slippery slope thinking either. The next batch of prospective hams will want to know why THEY can't get the privileges that the OTHERS got by simply being in the right place at the right time. What happens then? A lot of bad feelings, for one thing. To my knowedge there is no precedent for this sort of thing. And how! I would not feel any resentment toward hams that came on board sans Morse code testing. After all they were just taking the tests that were taken when they upgraded. But to have the equivalent of a General with just the technician test? For almost 60 percent of Hams to get the free upgrade? I make this suggestion in dead seriousness. ARRL needs to consult with a licensed psychologist stat, if not put one on staff retainer. Perhaps he or she could explain why this is such a stupid idea. And the primary question - what is the problem without the freebies? How about this scenario: ARRL is scared witless about the BPL problem. Their (somewhat necessary) paranoia about these things caused someone at HQ to muse "yaknow, if all these Technicians were Generals, we could show up at the FCC with much more impressive numbers of the Hams that would be negatively impacted by BPL or other spectrum threats". Right now, they don't have much HF access, so giving it to them allows us to jack those numbers up by a lot!" It bounces off the restructuring committee, and viola! A plan that not only P****s off those who came before, but also those who will come afterward. It will also make an incredibly good case for - dare I say it? indisputable running numbing dumbing down of the ARS. - Mike KB3EIA - |
"Bert Craig" wrote in message
et... "JJ" wrote in message ... Bert Craig wrote: Funny you should say that. I was just looking at his QSL card wondering how he is. I sent him a few e-mails to both addresses known to work...and no reply. Hope he's ok. Speaking of QSL cards, I just received one today from the 5 land qsl burro from an OH station in Finland I worked on September 26, *1981*. Better late than never I suppose. Wow, and I just recently received one from a 2/03 QSO...and I thought THAT was an unreasonably long time. hihi 73 de Bert WA2SI When I read about QSL'ing (I think in the Now You're Talking Book) before I got my ticket, the idea sounded grand. But, I quickly became disinterested when the reality of how long it takes, coupled with the added aggravation of having a bureau, etc. I understand the idea of handling costs, etc. But, it's just too much aggravation for me. There's supposedly some QSL cards waiting for me somewhere up in OK, I think at a QSL Manager or something. Someone posted the information here in the newsgroup one time. They'd probably mean nothing to me any more because I wouldn't even remember the contact! LOL But, for DXers and paper chasers, it's probably a nicely organized rigmarole. Do you mind the wait, Bert? You must be "into" DXing and contesting, eh? Kim W5TIT |
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
... I make this suggestion in dead seriousness. ARRL needs to consult with a licensed psychologist stat, if not put one on staff retainer. Perhaps he or she could explain why this is such a stupid idea. Ha! The ARRL is about nothing but marketing anymore. This is a great marketing effort to them: become the good cop and get hundreds to join, or something along those lines. Kim W5TIT |
Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
While I've stated many times that I would not support wholesale proliferation of SSB/SSTV to the detriment of CW/digital modes, the "refarming" of the (largely unused) "Novice bands" as proposed, is modest and I can tolerate it ... if it doesn't happen, the proposal can be tweaked a bit to allow for the increased access to HF for the "new Novices". Carl, I don't think it matters how many times you've stated *that* anymore. - Mike KB3EIA - |
Carl, I don't think it matters how many times you've stated *that* anymore.
- Mike KB3EIA - I think that was a given from the start. Karl the HEAD CBplusser cant be trusted. I think the "CBRRL" is run by morons like Karl. |
When they came out with incentive licensing, there was a vocal
minority complaining. When they came out with the No code tech license there was a vocal minority complaining. Now they are doing away with most of the CW requirement and there is a vocal minority complaining. WAyyyy back there used to be the class separation and then they did away with it to the point where the General class had full privileges. Then incentive licensing, then the new structure with code free techs on VHF, then they lowered the CW speed and now they are doing away with most of the CW requirements which are there due to international agreements. "To me" it matters little whether they make the requirements tech heavy, procedure heavy, or require CW. It has little to do with the character of those coming into the service. Each change has brought out the "gloom and doom" element proclaiming this will be the straw that broke the camel's back and the end of Amateur Radio. Maybe in addition to the technology and procedure testing we should run a test on character traits? :-)) If we had been doing such there would be a number of current hams who would have failed. I have gone the whole route and yes, I passed 20 wpm to get my license, but I don't see that need be a requirement for future applicants. It really doesn't matter how we test, there is always going to be a mix of character traits and groups who oppose the way each other operate. There will also be a small percent who will not be satisfied no mater what is done. Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member) (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair) www.rogerhalstead.com |
In article , "Kim W5TIT"
writes: "Mike Coslo" wrote in message ... I make this suggestion in dead seriousness. ARRL needs to consult with a licensed psychologist stat, if not put one on staff retainer. Perhaps he or she could explain why this is such a stupid idea. Ha! The ARRL is about nothing but marketing anymore. This is a great marketing effort to them: become the good cop and get hundreds to join, or something along those lines. Just discovered that? :-) The biggest moneymaker at the ARRL is their Publishing. They break even with QST but the gold is in the numerous books they have for sale (shipping charges extra if ordered from Newington but same prices, no shipping charges if bought over the counter at HRO). Publishing pays nearly all the bills at ARRL, including all the so-called membership services that are supposed to be so wonderful and "cost nothing" to members...renting of banquet rooms for the BoD get-togethers (and probably travel expenses, too?)...maintenance of W1AW and the museum...and the legal and lobbying fees in DC. Membership fees don't go for much directly. That pays for the "fulfillment services" (mailing lists, printing, distribution of QST) with the rest of it spread throughout Hq; membership magazine QST gets its income from advertising charges...just like the other independent magazines of interest to amateurs. The 2002 Federal Tax Returns for ARRL showed an operating budget of around $12 million. Given only 170 thousand or so memberships, that multiplied by annual dues isn't going to hit any $12 million. ARRL stays alive by BEING a business. Their self-promotion is a necessary thing. Unfortunately, many members don't see that, preferring the delusion of some altruistic, noble, kind, and good organization "solely for members." shrug LHA / WMD |
Leo wrote in message . ..
On 27 Jan 2004 00:29:04 GMT, (N2EY) wrote: In article , Leo writes: On 25 Jan 2004 20:30:20 GMT, (N2EY) wrote: extra credit trivia question: where does the term "wing it" come from? Hint: Has nothing to do with aviation. From the theatre, where impromptu performances were given by actors who received prompts from the wings. BINGO! Hey, this guy's good! Well, sometimes :) 73 de Jim, N2EY 73, Leo Len, another extra credit trivia question: where does the term "wing nut" come from? |
On 27 Jan 2004 15:02:49 -0800, (William) wrote:
Leo wrote in message . .. On 27 Jan 2004 00:29:04 GMT, (N2EY) wrote: In article , Leo writes: On 25 Jan 2004 20:30:20 GMT, (N2EY) wrote: extra credit trivia question: where does the term "wing it" come from? Hint: Has nothing to do with aviation. From the theatre, where impromptu performances were given by actors who received prompts from the wings. BINGO! Hey, this guy's good! Well, sometimes :) 73 de Jim, N2EY 73, Leo Len, another extra credit trivia question: where does the term "wing nut" come from? OK, but don't call me Len! You have me on that one - I have always taken for granted that the term came from the appearance of the 'wing nut' itself - that is, the two projections allowing it to be finger tightened look kinda like wings. Where did it come from? 73, Leo |
Leo wrote in message . ..
On 27 Jan 2004 15:02:49 -0800, (William) wrote: Leo wrote in message . .. On 27 Jan 2004 00:29:04 GMT, (N2EY) wrote: In article , Leo writes: On 25 Jan 2004 20:30:20 GMT, (N2EY) wrote: extra credit trivia question: where does the term "wing it" come from? Hint: Has nothing to do with aviation. From the theatre, where impromptu performances were given by actors who received prompts from the wings. BINGO! Hey, this guy's good! Well, sometimes :) 73 de Jim, N2EY 73, Leo Len, another extra credit trivia question: where does the term "wing nut" come from? OK, but don't call me Len! Sorry. I was just trying to feed Steve's paranoia. You have me on that one - I have always taken for granted that the term came from the appearance of the 'wing nut' itself - that is, the two projections allowing it to be finger tightened look kinda like wings. Where did it come from? 73, Leo I have no idea. I was in the Air Force, and the grunts always referred to us as wingnuts. So I thought you might know. I should ask Dee. She knows everything and she's always right. bb |
|
Well... I'm gonna try again. I posted this over 8 hours ago and it's not shown up on my server yet so my apologies if it turns up twice. When they came out with incentive licensing, there was a vocal minority complaining. When they came out with the No code tech license there was a vocal minority complaining. Now they are doing away with most of the CW requirement and there is a vocal minority complaining. WAyyyy back there used to be the class separation and then they did away with it to the point where the General class had full privileges. Then incentive licensing, then the new structure with code free techs on VHF, then they lowered the CW speed and now they are doing away with most of the CW requirements which are there due to international agreements. "To me" it matters little whether they make the requirements tech heavy, procedure heavy, or require CW. It has little to do with the character of those coming into the service. Each change has brought out the "gloom and doom" element proclaiming this will be the straw that broke the camel's back and the end of Amateur Radio. Maybe in addition to the technology and procedure testing we should run a test on character traits? :-)) If we had been doing such there would be a number of current hams who would have failed. I have gone the whole route and yes, I passed 20 wpm to get my license, but I don't see that need be a requirement for future applicants. It really doesn't matter how we test, there is always going to be a mix of character traits and groups who oppose the way each other operate. There will also be a small percent who will not be satisfied no mater what is done. The move proposed by the League is consistent with international treaty and world policy. Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member) (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair) www.rogerhalstead.com Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member) (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair) www.rogerhalstead.com |
|
|
"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
... But, for DXers and paper chasers, it's probably a nicely organized rigmarole. Do you mind the wait, Bert? You must be "into" DXing and contesting, eh? Kim W5TIT Nah, I'm neither a DXer nor a contester, Kim. I mostly like to ragchew. One of my Elmers taught me that "a QSL is the final courtesy of a QSO." I guess it kinda stuck with me. Most of the folks I've QSO'd with have sent me their card direct and right away. W0EX's card actually arrived the same day I mailed his out. There is one fellow R.R.A.Per who owes me a card tho...ahem. hihi ;-) 73 de Bert WA2SI |
"Roger Halstead" wrote in message ... Well... I'm gonna try again. I posted this over 8 hours ago and it's not shown up on my server yet so my apologies if it turns up twice. When they came out with incentive licensing, there was a vocal minority complaining. When they came out with the No code tech license there was a vocal minority complaining. Now they are doing away with most of the CW requirement and there is a vocal minority complaining. WAyyyy back there used to be the class separation and then they did away with it to the point where the General class had full privileges. Then incentive licensing, then the new structure with code free techs on VHF, then they lowered the CW speed and now they are doing away with most of the CW requirements which are there due to international agreements. "To me" it matters little whether they make the requirements tech heavy, procedure heavy, or require CW. It has little to do with the character of those coming into the service. Each change has brought out the "gloom and doom" element proclaiming this will be the straw that broke the camel's back and the end of Amateur Radio. Maybe in addition to the technology and procedure testing we should run a test on character traits? :-)) If we had been doing such there would be a number of current hams who would have failed. I have gone the whole route and yes, I passed 20 wpm to get my license, but I don't see that need be a requirement for future applicants. It really doesn't matter how we test, there is always going to be a mix of character traits and groups who oppose the way each other operate. There will also be a small percent who will not be satisfied no mater what is done. The move proposed by the League is consistent with international treaty and world policy. Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member) (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair) www.rogerhalstead.com Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member) (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair) www.rogerhalstead.com Great post. Propose anything and there will be that minority that opposes it. Cheers, Bill K2UNK ARRL and NCI |
In article , Mike Coslo
writes: N2EY wrote: In article , Mike Coslo writes: Carl R. Stevenson wrote: I was initially against this idea, thinking that taking the additional written element should be a requirement. However, I've read Ed Hare's excellent *personal, not ARRL policy* comments on this from eham, and find that they make sense to me - a compelling case for a "one-shot adjustment" to make things clean in a way that nobody loses anything. Once upon a time you also wrote: I do not, and never will support the elimination or watering down of the written tests. I have stated over and over again that I personally feel they could be made better (where "better" and "more difficult" are not necessarily synonymous ...). Doncha just love Google? You betchya! Everyone slips up from time to time, and I don't like to use it to catch people in little mistakes, but this one is right from Burger King! A Whopper! (remember to point out that your quote is about the written tests, not giving around 60 percent of US Hams a free upgrade) Same difference. It *is* the same difference, because what it does is to remove a whole level of written testing for a large number of existing hams. A one time adjustment? That really has to rank as one of the worst ideas that ever came down the pike! Not if there's a good reason for it - but so far I haven't seen a good reason. If the Technicians/now Generals can even be considered to receive the same privileges as the present Generals, how *Dare* the ARS or FCC even *think* of not making it a permanent thing? That isn't even slippery slope thinking either. The next batch of prospective hams will want to know why THEY can't get the privileges that the OTHERS got by simply being in the right place at the right time. What happens then? A lot of bad feelings, for one thing. To my knowledge there is no precedent for this sort of thing. And how! I would not feel any resentment toward hams that came on board sans Morse code testing. After all they were just taking the tests that were taken when they upgraded. But to have the equivalent of a General with just the technician test? For almost 60 percent of Hams to get the free upgrade? I make this suggestion in dead seriousness. ARRL needs to consult with a licensed psychologist stat, if not put one on staff retainer. Perhaps he or she could explain why this is such a stupid idea. I'd like to see what W1RFI's argument is. I'm still waiting for a link... And the primary question - what is the problem without the freebies? How about this scenario: ARRL is scared witless about the BPL problem. K7JEB came up with this some time back. It makes sense. Their (somewhat necessary) paranoia about these things caused someone at HQ to muse "yaknow, if all these Technicians were Generals, we could show up at the FCC with much more impressive numbers of the Hams that would be negatively impacted by BPL or other spectrum threats". Right now, they don't have much HF access, so giving it to them allows us to jack those numbers up by a lot!" It bounces off the restructuring committee, and viola! A plan that not only P****s off those who came before, but also those who will come afterward. Perhaps. Weigh that against the fact that if BPL is ever deployed at anything like a large scale, license tests for HF won't matter because HF will be pretty much unusable for ham communications of the type we're used to. It will also make an incredibly good case for - dare I say it? indisputable running numbing dumbing down of the ARS. (devil's advocate mode = ON) Back in the 1960s, we got something called "incentive licensing", which was the result of concern that US hams weren't keeping up with techo- change and were turning into "appliance operators", etc., etc. Did any of those trends really change because of IL? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
In article , Roger Halstead
writes: When they came out with incentive licensing, there was a vocal minority complaining. Were they complaining that it was needed or were they against it? This isn't a trivial question. Some folks claim the majority were for it, while others claim the majority were against it. Some say it was a good idea, some say it trashed amateur radio. What say you? When they came out with the No code tech license there was a vocal minority complaining. Which way? The FCC tried to get a nocodetest license as early as 1975, and again in 1983, but clear majorities of hams were against it. They funally pushed it through in 1990. Some folks claim the majority were for it, while others claim the majority were against it. Some say it was a good idea, some say it trashed amateur radio. What say you? Now they are doing away with most of the CW requirement and there is a vocal minority complaining. Which way? And how do you know they're a minority? Survey after survey shows that there is still majority support for at least some code testing. Indeed, the comments to FCC back in 1999 show that not only was there majority support for code testing, but a majority of commenters wanted at least two code test speeds. The folks wanting only 5 wpm or no code test were the minority. But that minority got its way. WAyyyy back there used to be the class separation and then they did away with it to the point where the General class had full privileges. Late 1952. Went into effect Feb, 1953. Then incentive licensing, then the new structure with code free techs on VHF, then they lowered the CW speed and now they are doing away with most of the CW requirements which are there due to international agreements. "To me" it matters little whether they make the requirements tech heavy, procedure heavy, or require CW. It has little to do with the character of those coming into the service. Each change has brought out the "gloom and doom" element proclaiming this will be the straw that broke the camel's back and the end of Amateur Radio. That's one way to look at it. Here's another: Some look at the trend since about 1975 and see a gradual reduction in the qualifications for a license, and a gradual reduction in the "quality" of the ARS. YMMV. No one event or change sticks out - just a slow, gradual change that is barely noticeable unless you step back and compare over a long period of time. Maybe in addition to the technology and procedure testing we should run a test on character traits? :-)) If we had been doing such there would be a number of current hams who would have failed. I have gone the whole route and yes, I passed 20 wpm to get my license, but I don't see that need be a requirement for future applicants. I do. It really doesn't matter how we test, there is always going to be a mix of character traits and groups who oppose the way each other operate. There will also be a small percent who will not be satisfied no mater what is done. So it makes sense to please the majority, doesn;t it? The move proposed by the League is consistent with international treaty and world policy. Some of it does. But do you support free upgrades of all Techs and Tech Pluses to General, and all Advanceds to Extra? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"N2EY" wrote in message ... In article , Roger Halstead writes: When they came out with incentive licensing, there was a vocal minority complaining. Were they complaining that it was needed or were they against it? This isn't a trivial question. Some folks claim the majority were for it, while others claim the majority were against it. Some say it was a good idea, some say it trashed amateur radio. What say you? When they came out with the No code tech license there was a vocal minority complaining. Which way? The FCC tried to get a nocodetest license as early as 1975, and again in 1983, but clear majorities of hams were against it. They funally pushed it through in 1990. Some folks claim the majority were for it, while others claim the majority were against it. Some say it was a good idea, some say it trashed amateur radio. What say you? Now they are doing away with most of the CW requirement and there is a vocal minority complaining. Which way? And how do you know they're a minority? Survey after survey shows that there is still majority support for at least some code testing. Indeed, the comments to FCC back in 1999 show that not only was there majority support for code testing, but a majority of commenters wanted at least two code test speeds. The folks wanting only 5 wpm or no code test were the minority. But that minority got its way. Water over the dam or under the bridge. Fact is, there has NOT been any credible survey done of late which would take into account the realities of change going on and the change that has gone on. Additionally, for the umpteenth time, the rules and regulations of amateur radio are NOT the sole province of already licensed amateurs. The mere fact that a majority of amateurs does or doesn't want code testing is NOT sufficient cause for the FCC to make the rules according to only those already licensed. Cheers, Bill K2UNK WAyyyy back there used to be the class separation and then they did away with it to the point where the General class had full privileges. Late 1952. Went into effect Feb, 1953. Then incentive licensing, then the new structure with code free techs on VHF, then they lowered the CW speed and now they are doing away with most of the CW requirements which are there due to international agreements. "To me" it matters little whether they make the requirements tech heavy, procedure heavy, or require CW. It has little to do with the character of those coming into the service. Each change has brought out the "gloom and doom" element proclaiming this will be the straw that broke the camel's back and the end of Amateur Radio. That's one way to look at it. Here's another: Some look at the trend since about 1975 and see a gradual reduction in the qualifications for a license, and a gradual reduction in the "quality" of the ARS. YMMV. No one event or change sticks out - just a slow, gradual change that is barely noticeable unless you step back and compare over a long period of time. Fact is that a General in 1957 had all privileges and the test was probably easier then than now..other than the code test. Maybe in addition to the technology and procedure testing we should run a test on character traits? :-)) If we had been doing such there would be a number of current hams who would have failed. I have gone the whole route and yes, I passed 20 wpm to get my license, but I don't see that need be a requirement for future applicants. I do. 20wpm? Yet neither you nor anyone else was able to convince the FCC that even 13wpm was justifiable for any license class. And that was 5 years ago. It really doesn't matter how we test, there is always going to be a mix of character traits and groups who oppose the way each other operate. There will also be a small percent who will not be satisfied no mater what is done. So it makes sense to please the majority, doesn;t it? Read my lips...this isn't a vote as to what is best! In the end it is the FCC that decides based on individual and group input from ALL that wish to do so....amateurs and non-amateurs alike. There is NO decision based on a majority of anything. The move proposed by the League is consistent with international treaty and world policy. Some of it does. What part of it doesn't? But do you support free upgrades of all Techs and Tech Pluses to General, and all Advanceds to Extra? It doesn't bother me at all. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
In article t, "Bill Sohl"
writes: "N2EY" wrote in message ... In article , Roger Halstead writes: When they came out with incentive licensing, there was a vocal minority complaining. Were they complaining that it was needed or were they against it? This isn't a trivial question. Some folks claim the majority were for it, while others claim the majority were against it. Some say it was a good idea, some say it trashed amateur radio. What say you? When they came out with the No code tech license there was a vocal minority complaining. Which way? The FCC tried to get a nocodetest license as early as 1975, and again in 1983, but clear majorities of hams were against it. They funally pushed it through in 1990. Some folks claim the majority were for it, while others claim the majority were against it. Some say it was a good idea, some say it trashed amateur radio. What say you? Now they are doing away with most of the CW requirement and there is a vocal minority complaining. Which way? And how do you know they're a minority? Survey after survey shows that there is still majority support for at least some code testing. Indeed, the comments to FCC back in 1999 show that not only was there majority support for code testing, but a majority of commenters wanted at least two code test speeds. The folks wanting only 5 wpm or no code test were the minority. But that minority got its way. Water over the dam or under the bridge. Fact is, there has NOT been any credible survey done of late which would take into account the realities of change going on and the change that has gone on. Yes, there has. Simply look at the comments to the various petitions to the FCC restructuring. Additionally, for the umpteenth time, the rules and regulations of amateur radio are NOT the sole province of already licensed amateurs. The mere fact that a majority of amateurs does or doesn't want code testing is NOT sufficient cause for the FCC to make the rules according to only those already licensed. That's why the comments to the FCC are so revealing. Anyone can comment, licensed or not. So all it takes is a simple review of the comments to get an indication of what the amateur community, licensed or not, thinks. And since FCC requires commenters to give their real identity, "box-stuffing" and such is avoided, and if one person writes a dozen comments, they still only count as one person's opinion. NCI did a count of the comments to 98-143, and the majority wanted at least two code test speeds. FCC said no. That's their right, but it's important to note what the majority of commenters wanted. WAyyyy back there used to be the class separation and then they did away with it to the point where the General class had full privileges. Late 1952. Went into effect Feb, 1953. Then incentive licensing, then the new structure with code free techs on VHF, then they lowered the CW speed and now they are doing away with most of the CW requirements which are there due to international agreements. "To me" it matters little whether they make the requirements tech heavy, procedure heavy, or require CW. It has little to do with the character of those coming into the service. Each change has brought out the "gloom and doom" element proclaiming this will be the straw that broke the camel's back and the end of Amateur Radio. That's one way to look at it. Here's another: Some look at the trend since about 1975 and see a gradual reduction in the qualifications for a license, and a gradual reduction in the "quality" of the ARS. YMMV. No one event or change sticks out - just a slow, gradual change that is barely noticeable unless you step back and compare over a long period of time. Fact is that a General in 1957 had all privileges and the test was probably easier then than now I disagree! But without the actual tests for comparison, nobody can really say. ..other than the code test. Maybe in addition to the technology and procedure testing we should run a test on character traits? :-)) If we had been doing such there would be a number of current hams who would have failed. I have gone the whole route and yes, I passed 20 wpm to get my license, but I don't see that need be a requirement for future applicants. I do. 20wpm? Yet neither you nor anyone else was able to convince the FCC that even 13wpm was justifiable for any license class. And that was 5 years ago. Doesn't mean it's what's best for the ARS. It really doesn't matter how we test, there is always going to be a mix of character traits and groups who oppose the way each other operate. There will also be a small percent who will not be satisfied no mater what is done. So it makes sense to please the majority, doesn;t it? Read my lips...this isn't a vote as to what is best! Would you say that if you had a clear and obvious majority? Suppose comments to the 98-143 had been 70% "dump the code test" - we'd never hear the end of it. In the end it is the FCC that decides based on individual and group input from ALL that wish to do so....amateurs and non-amateurs alike. There is NO decision based on a majority of anything. The claim was made in this thread that "a vocal minority complained". Majority and minority opinion *do* have an effect - just ask John Kerry. The move proposed by the League is consistent with international treaty and world policy. Some of it does. What part of it doesn't? Free upgrades, for one. But do you support free upgrades of all Techs and Tech Pluses to General, and all Advanceds to Extra? It doesn't bother me at all. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"N2EY" wrote in message ... In article t, "Bill Sohl" writes: "N2EY" wrote in message ... In article , Roger Halstead writes: When they came out with incentive licensing, there was a vocal minority complaining. Were they complaining that it was needed or were they against it? This isn't a trivial question. Some folks claim the majority were for it, while others claim the majority were against it. Some say it was a good idea, some say it trashed amateur radio. What say you? When they came out with the No code tech license there was a vocal minority complaining. Which way? The FCC tried to get a nocodetest license as early as 1975, and again in 1983, but clear majorities of hams were against it. They funally pushed it through in 1990. Some folks claim the majority were for it, while others claim the majority were against it. Some say it was a good idea, some say it trashed amateur radio. What say you? Now they are doing away with most of the CW requirement and there is a vocal minority complaining. Which way? And how do you know they're a minority? Survey after survey shows that there is still majority support for at least some code testing. Indeed, the comments to FCC back in 1999 show that not only was there majority support for code testing, but a majority of commenters wanted at least two code test speeds. The folks wanting only 5 wpm or no code test were the minority. But that minority got its way. Water over the dam or under the bridge. Fact is, there has NOT been any credible survey done of late which would take into account the realities of change going on and the change that has gone on. Yes, there has. Simply look at the comments to the various petitions to the FCC restructuring. Two points: 1. That was 5 years ago and 2. That was NO survey and you know it. Yes, one can derive statistics of those that DID comment, but the stats are in no way automatically revealing of what the amateur community as a whole may think. Anyone that ever took a statistics class can tell you that. Additionally, for the umpteenth time, the rules and regulations of amateur radio are NOT the sole province of already licensed amateurs. The mere fact that a majority of amateurs does or doesn't want code testing is NOT sufficient cause for the FCC to make the rules according to only those already licensed. That's why the comments to the FCC are so revealing. Anyone can comment, licensed or not. So all it takes is a simple review of the comments to get an indication of what the amateur community, licensed or not, thinks. WRONG for the same reasons I just stated above. And since FCC requires commenters to give their real identity, "box-stuffing" and such is avoided, and if one person writes a dozen comments, they still only count as one person's opinion. Again...this isn't done by a vote. NCI did a count of the comments to 98-143, and the majority wanted at least two code test speeds. FCC said no. That's their right, but it's important to note what the majority of commenters wanted. NOTE SPECIFICALLY: NCI never stated anything other than the results of those that commented. Anything beyond that would be speculation only. WAyyyy back there used to be the class separation and then they did away with it to the point where the General class had full privileges. Late 1952. Went into effect Feb, 1953. Then incentive licensing, then the new structure with code free techs on VHF, then they lowered the CW speed and now they are doing away with most of the CW requirements which are there due to international agreements. "To me" it matters little whether they make the requirements tech heavy, procedure heavy, or require CW. It has little to do with the character of those coming into the service. Each change has brought out the "gloom and doom" element proclaiming this will be the straw that broke the camel's back and the end of Amateur Radio. That's one way to look at it. Here's another: Some look at the trend since about 1975 and see a gradual reduction in the qualifications for a license, and a gradual reduction in the "quality" of the ARS. YMMV. No one event or change sticks out - just a slow, gradual change that is barely noticeable unless you step back and compare over a long period of time. Fact is that a General in 1957 had all privileges and the test was probably easier then than now I disagree! But without the actual tests for comparison, nobody can really say. I took the general in 1957/8 timeframe and it was no big deal for me as a teenager of 16. ..other than the code test. Maybe in addition to the technology and procedure testing we should run a test on character traits? :-)) If we had been doing such there would be a number of current hams who would have failed. I have gone the whole route and yes, I passed 20 wpm to get my license, but I don't see that need be a requirement for future applicants. I do. 20wpm? Yet neither you nor anyone else was able to convince the FCC that even 13wpm was justifiable for any license class. And that was 5 years ago. Doesn't mean it's what's best for the ARS. ROTFLMAO... You left out the "IMHO" on that. As we have often decided...we'll likly forever be at odds on that one :-) :-) It really doesn't matter how we test, there is always going to be a mix of character traits and groups who oppose the way each other operate. There will also be a small percent who will not be satisfied no mater what is done. So it makes sense to please the majority, doesn;t it? Read my lips...this isn't a vote as to what is best! Would you say that if you had a clear and obvious majority? Suppose comments to the 98-143 had been 70% "dump the code test" - we'd never hear the end of it. Welcome to the world of political persuasion. In the end it is the FCC that decides based on individual and group input from ALL that wish to do so....amateurs and non-amateurs alike. There is NO decision based on a majority of anything. The claim was made in this thread that "a vocal minority complained". Majority and minority opinion *do* have an effect - just ask John Kerry. In the end it will come down to the FCC only...regardless of any vocal minority or majority. The move proposed by the League is consistent with international treaty and world policy. Some of it does. What part of it doesn't? Free upgrades, for one. Free upgrades do NOT specifically go against anything in the treaty or otherwise in the more broad based "world policy" . If you think otherwise, please point out the conflicting treaty text. But do you support free upgrades of all Techs and Tech Pluses to General, and all Advanceds to Extra? It doesn't bother me at all. Jim, how'd you let my comment about it not bothering me pass without a comment from you :-) :-) Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
"KØHB" wrote:
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote | 3) free upgrades for Techs and Tech Pluses to General? | | I was initially against this idea, thinking that taking the additional | written element should be a requirement. However, I've read | Ed Hare's excellent *personal, not ARRL policy* comments | on this from eham, and find that they make sense to me - a | compelling case for a "one-shot adjustment" to | make things clean in a way that nobody loses anything. I haven't seen Ed Hare's argument, so I can't comment on it. If the "adjustment" were some minor clean-up to sweep up the remnants of a long abandoned legacy class and the number of licenses involved was trivial (under 10,000), then I'd have no problem with it. But we aren't dealing with some trival number, we are dealing with almost 2/3rds of existing licensees. The message ARRL sends with this proposal is "our General (and Extra) qualifications" are more strenuous than need be. Such a free-pass would establish that all these hundreds of thousands of licensees have been qualified for General (or Extra) all along. At that moment it is established, ipso facto, that the current Technician examination is sufficient for the 'new General' and that the last Advanced examination is sufficient for the 'new Extra'. Up until now I have never raised the cry of "dumbing down", but such a mass give-away would set a new lower bar for all future qualification levels in the Amateur Radio service, and your position allegedly in support of strenuous technical qualification standards rings hollow indeed. The latest offering from the League ranks right up there with the idea of creating the "Diamond Club", the "Animal Farm" of memberships. Dave K8MN |
"KØHB" wrote:
"WA8ULX" wrote | Because ARRL is a representative democracy, ARRL Directors listened to members | in their respective divisions while considering these issues. Directors heard | from many amateurs in their divisions, and some directors conducted their own | surveys. The final proposal represents the Board's best effort at changes to | the Amateur Radio licensing structure needed to carry us through the next 10 to | 15 years." I, for one, suggest that popularity polls and beauty contests are not a particularly good method for influencing and guiding the evolution of the Amateur Radio service. This is particularly true for the National Association for Amateur Radio, which in my not-so-humble-opinion is abdicating its responsibility to show leadership and vision, but has cobbled together an unimaginative proposal lacking both, and copping out by passing it off as "listened to members" Ah, but directors do listen to members. Roanoke Division Director Bodson read my e-mail concerning the removal of "Section News" and contest line scores from QST. He listened at Jackson's Mill during the state ARRL convention as I outlined my views and the reasons for them. Then he himself introduced the motion to bring the changes about. "Listening to" is not the same as "acting on the views held by" members. Dave K8MN |
Len Over 21 wrote:
The biggest moneymaker at the ARRL is their Publishing. They break even with QST but the gold is in the numerous books they have for sale (shipping charges extra if ordered from Newington but same prices, no shipping charges if bought over the counter at HRO). Why is with your shipping charges fetish? There should be some incentive for folks to buy League publications from dealers, saving shipping costs (that's if the consumers forget that they are going to pay sales tax when they buy from dealers). MFJ does the same thing. Buy direct from MFJ and pay full list price. Almost all MFJ dealers discount substantially. Publishing pays nearly all the bills at ARRL, including all the so-called membership services that are supposed to be so wonderful and "cost nothing" to members...renting of banquet rooms for the BoD get-togethers (and probably travel expenses, too?)...maintenance of W1AW and the museum...and the legal and lobbying fees in DC. Tell us how that differs from how things work at AARP, NRA, VFW or American Legion, Len. Membership fees don't go for much directly. That pays for the "fulfillment services" (mailing lists, printing, distribution of QST) with the rest of it spread throughout Hq; membership magazine QST gets its income from advertising charges...just like the other independent magazines of interest to amateurs. The 2002 Federal Tax Returns for ARRL showed an operating budget of around $12 million. Given only 170 thousand or so memberships, that multiplied by annual dues isn't going to hit any $12 million. ARRL stays alive by BEING a business. Their self-promotion is a necessary thing. Unfortunately, many members don't see that, preferring the delusion of some altruistic, noble, kind, and good organization "solely for members." shrug What is the deal with you and the ARRL? You aren't a League member and you aren't a radio amateur. What is any of this to you? Dave K8MN |
Len Over 21 wrote: In article , (William) writes: 73, Leo Len, another extra credit trivia question: where does the term "wing nut" come from? Ahem...that's LEO, Brian... :-) But, you have to admit that the A.I. message program is a darn good one! :-) The term "wing nut" probably came from within the USAF before Larrah signed off the Form 1 on his desk. [that's what he was called when trying to "wing it" with rationalizations of how and why he did what he did] N2EY: "Besides, here's a simple, plain fact: No matter what job, educational level, employer, or government/military service that a radio amateur has, if said radio amateur opposes Mr. Anderson's views, he/she will be the target of Mr. Anderson's insults, ridicule, name-calling, factual errors, ethnic slurs, excessive emoticons and general infantile behavior." I thought this might refresh your memory while you're preparing for more civil debate on the elimination of morse testing, Leonard. Dave K8MN |
Dave Heil wrote:
Len Over 21 wrote: The biggest moneymaker at the ARRL is their Publishing. They break even with QST but the gold is in the numerous books they have for sale (shipping charges extra if ordered from Newington but same prices, no shipping charges if bought over the counter at HRO). Why is with your shipping charges fetish? There should be some incentive for folks to buy League publications from dealers, saving shipping costs (that's if the consumers forget that they are going to pay sales tax when they buy from dealers). MFJ does the same thing. Buy direct from MFJ and pay full list price. Almost all MFJ dealers discount substantially. Publishing pays nearly all the bills at ARRL, including all the so-called membership services that are supposed to be so wonderful and "cost nothing" to members...renting of banquet rooms for the BoD get-togethers (and probably travel expenses, too?)...maintenance of W1AW and the museum...and the legal and lobbying fees in DC. Tell us how that differs from how things work at AARP, NRA, VFW or American Legion, Len. Membership fees don't go for much directly. That pays for the "fulfillment services" (mailing lists, printing, distribution of QST) with the rest of it spread throughout Hq; membership magazine QST gets its income from advertising charges...just like the other independent magazines of interest to amateurs. The 2002 Federal Tax Returns for ARRL showed an operating budget of around $12 million. Given only 170 thousand or so memberships, that multiplied by annual dues isn't going to hit any $12 million. ARRL stays alive by BEING a business. Their self-promotion is a necessary thing. Unfortunately, many members don't see that, preferring the delusion of some altruistic, noble, kind, and good organization "solely for members." shrug What is the deal with you and the ARRL? You aren't a League member and you aren't a radio amateur. What is any of this to you? And what is the deal with the publications in general? I enjoy them and buy them. They gather information that is of interest to Hams, and we buy them and they make money. They are happy with the arrangement and so am I and plenty of other people. Sounds like the American way to me! - Mike KB3EIA - |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:22 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com