Len Over 21 wrote:
Since ARRL controls QST, they can get FREE advertising for whatever else ARRL is publishing. They do. It's an all-around money-winner since they don't pay much for submitted work by others. Controls QST? Leonard, the League owns QST. It is the ARRL's membership magazine. Imagine getting free ARRL adversts in the ARRL magazine. You may have blown the cover off this thing. Since ARRL arranges to OWN first rights to all articles in QST, they can reprint that material in Handbooks or anything else as much and as many times as they wish without giving a cent more in compensation to authors. Fabulous setup for making a bit of money for the League. They've got it sewn up tight. :-) I'd think a fellow who frequently touts his talents as a "PROFESSIONAL WRITER" would be up on what "first rights" are all about. www.writing-world.com says: " 'First' rights give a publication the right to be first to publish your material in either a particular medium or a particular location. FNASR, for example, generally applies to print publication, within North America. First British rights means the right to publish a piece first within Britain -- even if it has already been published somewhere else. First electronic rights means the right to be first to provide the material in electronic format. Note that one can sell many different variations on 'first' rights, as long as these variations don't overlap." So either QST isn't buying only "first rights" or you have made yet another error. Let's give your statement the last rites. Note: Retail outlets for League publications make a small profit on publishing sales, yet the price for each one is the same whether one buys it in HRO or orders from Newington. The difference is that anyone ordering from Newington has to ALSO pay shipping charges! Double profits...no cost to them for shipping and they make the retailer's discount difference for themselves! Lovely. There's one interpretation. The dealer can sell the books without shipping charges, thus saving a buyer the shipping charges. I don't have an amateur radio dealer closer than two hours away. If I order the ARRL Handbook from R&L Electronics or Universal Amateur Radio, I'm going to pay the same price as if I'd bought from ARRL--and I'm going to pay *shipping*. "Endowment funds?" I doubt there are many millionaires out there bequeathing large sums to the League. Nowhere close to Kroc endowments. It is a kind of crock, though. You'd be surprised. Then again, you aren't a radio amateur nor are you an ARRL member. [now watch all the ARRL syncophants come out, panting with rage and vitriol for Telling It Like It Really Is...:-) ] Leonard, the word is "sycophants". Master it. Make it your own. Dave K8MN |
Dave Heil wrote in message ...
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 So you have a history of having your views ignored. bb |
In article t, "Bill Sohl"
writes: "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 So? Check the comments to the various RMs filed since then. 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. Not the point! Looking at the comments tells us what those who cared enough to comment think. Just as an election tells us what those who cared enough to vote think. The FCC makes it incredibly easy to file comments by email or paper, so it's not like the old massive copying mess of the old days. 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. Why is that wrong? If someone cares about the issue, let 'em put their fingers to work and write or email. 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. It should be. 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. And those results were that a MINORITY supported the NCI view of 5 wpm only. A MAJORITY wanted either two test speeds or three test speeds. That's clear from the results. 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. Heck, I passed the General and Advanced at 14 in 1968 and the Extra at 16 (1970). No big deal either. So what's all the fuss? ..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. It's not just my opinion... 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. Exactly. 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. "We'll put it to a vote...You all get one vote - FCC gets one billion votes" 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. The part about meeting the suggested syllabus, 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. Jim, how'd you let my comment about it not bothering me pass without a comment from you :-) :-) You comment didn't bother me.... 73 es stay warm de Jim, N2EY |
"N2EY" wrote in message ... In article t, "Bill Sohl" writes: "N2EY" wrote in message ... In article t, "Bill Sohl" writes: "N2EY" wrote in message ... In article , Roger Halstead writes: 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. The part about meeting the suggested syllabus, for one.... Not at all since there is NO specific licensing breakdown in the treaty by subject/syllabus. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
Dave Heil wrote in message ...
Leonard, the word is "sycophants". Master it. Make it your own. Dave K8MN Dave, you appear to have it mastered. Run with it. |
William wrote:
Dave Heil wrote in message ... Leonard, the word is "sycophants". Master it. Make it your own. Dave, you appear to have it mastered. Run with it. Well, well. Begin writing of sycophants and one pops out of the woodwork. Give my regards to Doctor Evil. Dave K8MN |
Dave Heil wrote in message ...
William wrote: Dave Heil wrote in message ... Leonard, the word is "sycophants". Master it. Make it your own. Dave, you appear to have it mastered. Run with it. Well, well. Begin writing of sycophants and one pops out of the woodwork. Give my regards to Doctor Evil. Dave K8MN Doctor Evil? Are you reliving a 60's James Bond movie, in between working out of band Frenchmen? |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:29 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com