|
Care To Try Again, Steve?
Subject: Care To Try Again, Steve?
From: (William) Date: 11/26/2004 3:53 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: (Steve Robeson, K4CAP) wrote in message .com... I may choke on this, but... And...(hold on to your hats boys and girls...) I agree. My one and only disagreement here is that, as of right now, it appears legal and within the scope of Part 97. So WHAT do we do to fix it? We could act like the lobbyists (real lobbyists, not the ones the ARRL hires.) Lobbyists rewrite the rules and present a *finished product* to the Senate so the elected officials don't have to think too much. They slap their names on the bill as "author." Look, if the inmates are in charge of the left wing of the asylum (VEC/Question Pools/Morse-Farnsworth Exams/etc), why can't we simply rewrite Part 97 and present it to the FCC for publication? Certainly we have more qualified "rules writers" than that last restructuring fiasco. Why not? 73 Steve, K4YZ |
(William) wrote in message . com...
(Steve Robeson K4YZ) wrote in message ... Subject: Care To Try Again, Steve? From: (William) Date: 11/26/2004 3:53 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: (Steve Robeson, K4CAP) wrote in message .com... I may choke on this, but... And...(hold on to your hats boys and girls...) I agree. My one and only disagreement here is that, as of right now, it appears legal and within the scope of Part 97. So WHAT do we do to fix it? We could act like the lobbyists (real lobbyists, not the ones the ARRL hires.) Lobbyists rewrite the rules and present a *finished product* to the Senate so the elected officials don't have to think too much. They slap their names on the bill as "author." Look, if the inmates are in charge of the left wing of the asylum (VEC/Question Pools/Morse-Farnsworth Exams/etc), why can't we simply rewrite Part 97 and present it to the FCC for publication? Certainly we have more qualified "rules writers" than that last restructuring fiasco. Why not? 73 Steve, K4YZ Steve, thanks for snipping all of the non-pertinent comments, and Why not, indeed? I just fat-fingered away about two hours worth of comments. Poof! Gone. I'll try again later this weekend. Three things: First of all, I am working, and didn't have time to comment at length on the entire post. Secondly, I only copied the text to which I was specifically replying. Why re-quote the entire post just to make a couple sentences worth of reply? Lastly, when I ahve a chance to sit down to the rest, I will answer the rest. Were the comments I supplied above not direct, to the point and understood? And your comments are NOT "poof...gone", Brian...They're still right there on Google for anyone who wants to review them...as always. 73 Steve, K4YZ |
(William) wrote in message . com...
(Steve Robeson K4YZ) wrote in message ... Subject: Care To Try Again, Steve? From: (William) Date: 11/26/2004 3:53 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: (Steve Robeson, K4CAP) wrote in message .com... I may choke on this, but... And...(hold on to your hats boys and girls...) I agree. My one and only disagreement here is that, as of right now, it appears legal and within the scope of Part 97. So WHAT do we do to fix it? We could act like the lobbyists (real lobbyists, not the ones the ARRL hires.) Lobbyists rewrite the rules and present a *finished product* to the Senate so the elected officials don't have to think too much. They slap their names on the bill as "author." Look, if the inmates are in charge of the left wing of the asylum (VEC/Question Pools/Morse-Farnsworth Exams/etc), why can't we simply rewrite Part 97 and present it to the FCC for publication? Certainly we have more qualified "rules writers" than that last restructuring fiasco. Why not? 73 Steve, K4YZ Steve, thanks for snipping all of the non-pertinent comments, and Why not, indeed? I just fat-fingered away about two hours worth of comments. Poof! Gone. I'll try again later this weekend. Three things: First of all, I am working, and didn't have time to comment at length on the entire post. Secondly, I only copied the text to which I was specifically replying. Why re-quote the entire post just to make a couple sentences worth of reply? Lastly, when I ahve a chance to sit down to the rest, I will answer the rest. Were the comments I supplied above not direct, to the point and understood? And your comments are NOT "poof...gone", Brian...They're still right there on Google for anyone who wants to review them...as always. 73 Steve, K4YZ |
(Steve Robeson, K4CAP) wrote in message . com...
(William) wrote in message . com... (Steve Robeson K4YZ) wrote in message ... Subject: Care To Try Again, Steve? From: (William) Date: 11/26/2004 3:53 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: (Steve Robeson, K4CAP) wrote in message .com... I may choke on this, but... And...(hold on to your hats boys and girls...) I agree. My one and only disagreement here is that, as of right now, it appears legal and within the scope of Part 97. So WHAT do we do to fix it? We could act like the lobbyists (real lobbyists, not the ones the ARRL hires.) Lobbyists rewrite the rules and present a *finished product* to the Senate so the elected officials don't have to think too much. They slap their names on the bill as "author." Look, if the inmates are in charge of the left wing of the asylum (VEC/Question Pools/Morse-Farnsworth Exams/etc), why can't we simply rewrite Part 97 and present it to the FCC for publication? Certainly we have more qualified "rules writers" than that last restructuring fiasco. Why not? 73 Steve, K4YZ Steve, thanks for snipping all of the non-pertinent comments, and Why not, indeed? I just fat-fingered away about two hours worth of comments. Poof! Gone. I'll try again later this weekend. Three things: First of all, I am working, and didn't have time to comment at length on the entire post. Secondly, I only copied the text to which I was specifically replying. Why re-quote the entire post just to make a couple sentences worth of reply? Lastly, when I ahve a chance to sit down to the rest, I will answer the rest. If you wish. Were the comments I supplied above not direct, to the point and understood? Concise. And your comments are NOT "poof...gone", Brian...They're still right there on Google for anyone who wants to review them...as always. 73 Steve, K4YZ Yes, "poof,,,gone." They never got to google. bb |
Subject: Care To Try Again, Steve?
From: (William) Date: 11/28/2004 10:00 AM Central Standard Time Message-id: And your comments are NOT "poof...gone", Brian...They're still right there on Google for anyone who wants to review them...as always. 73 Steve, K4YZ Yes, "poof,,,gone." They never got to google. Ahhhhhh...I see...I thought you meant what I was snipping for brevity..You meant you accidentally deleted what you were wrting....My bust. 73 Steve, K4YZ |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:28 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com