About Us

March 27th 04, 09:20 PM

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article ,

(Len Over 21) writes:

The Dick Bash printing organization was a late-comer among
the general "Q&A" publishing group (never a large one).

Bash obtained the material in his books by methods that were unethical

In your opinion, anyway.

and arguably illegal at the time.

a legal argument in academic concept only. Since the FCC
never tested the legality, the legal issue is moot.

The
surname has emotional connotations handy for those who
need to have something, anyone to "bash" due to whatever
frustration those people have.

Bash obtained the material in his books by methods that were unethical and
arguably illegal at the time.

Ditto my last.

Bash's actions were the equivalent of sneaking into a teacher's office and
copying tests before they were given, then selling the copies.

Not at all. Itwould be the equivalent of a techer using the SAME
test questions over and over again and in recognition of same, a
frat house eventually compiles a list of those questions based on the
memory of those frats that had taken the tests before. Nothing
about what bash did is equivalent to sneaking into the teacher's
office.

Oddly, no one seems to bash
the ARRL for publishing essentially the same sort of material
long before the Bash company did its thing.

That's because ARRL obtained its material through proper channels. FCC
published a study guide of questions that indicated the mateiral that
would be
on the tests (but not the actual Q&A), and ARRL reprinted it, along with
other
information useful to someone seeking an amateur radio license. All with
FCC
knowledge and approval. In fact, the License Manuals explain the source of
the
study guides.

In the end it made no difference.

Bash obtained his materials by other methods,

And those methods were NEVER chalenged as to the
means being legal or not.

and his books did not explain how
the material was obtained.

As if anyone buying the Bash books cared.

In a way, buying a Bash book was akin to receiving stolen property.

In your opinion anyway. Again, no such claim or
argument was ever leveled against Bash as violating any
FCC rules...much less any "criminal act" such as
receiving stolen goods.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
New ARRL Proposal	N2EY	Policy	331	March 4th 04 12:02 AM
My restructuring proposal	Jason Hsu	Policy	0	January 20th 04 06:24 PM
Responses to 14 Petitions on Code Testing	Len Over 21	Policy	0	October 22nd 03 11:38 PM
Amateur Radio NewslineÃ¢â€žÂ¢ Report 1362Ã¢â‚¬â€œ September 19 2003	Radionews	General	0	September 20th 03 04:12 PM
What's All Dose Numbers Hams Use	A Ham Elmer	Dx	3	July 16th 03 04:44 PM

Menu

About Us