wrote:
From: "bb" on Wed,May 4 2005 4:13 pm


wrote:

From: "K0HB" on Tues,May 3 2005 5:59 pm


"bb" wrote

Yup, everyone just got through saying that there's a problem

attracting

Technicians to the organization. No one seems to be able to put their
finger on exactly why, only because they reject the -correct- answer
(reminds me of the OJ case). And they still wring their hands and

bite

their knuckles and ask, "Why?"


It's awful. Those olde-tymers just CAN'T understand
why all the newcomers DON'T worship the olde-tymers'
ideals of long ago.

Hell, I'm OLDER than most of them and I STARTED on
HF...but NOT doing a bit of "CW." :-)

Then again, you still aren't a ham. :-)

Dave K8MN

Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:
Dee Flint wrote:

"Senior moment . . . "

This thread was started by Hans who stated in so many words that
Techs
are under-represented by the ARRL because they don't join in the
quantities other class licensees join that some changes need to be
made, etc., etc. ~Half the hams in this country are Techs.

Change to:

If, as you state, *half the ARRL members are Techs* then what's the
point to this whole thread?? Or is it me again?

w3rv


If Hans is correct about the scarcity of Techs in the ARRL
membership, he
proposes a way to attract them is all. I simply indicated that his
original
premise may or may not be true. Thus it should be checked. I don't
know
what the numbers are. I simply thought I saw something on it but
haven't
checked it.

OK, I'll see if I can get the numbers.

It is my point of view that the ARRL ought to try to get the
involvement of more hams of all classes.

I don't think you'd find anybody around here who wouldn't agree. With
one probable exception of course.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

w3rv

"bb" wrote

QST circulation numbers will always be higher
than ARRL membership numbers because of
library subscriptions and news stand sales.

You're mistaken.

de Hans, K0HB

wrote:
From: "Dee Flint" on Wed,May 4 2005 8:00 pm

The ARRL has fought and continues to fight to protect our spectrum,

hardly

the action of a "mutual admiration society".


Tsk, tsk, tsk..."protecting [your] spectrum"...

The 40 meter issue then sounds like the "24 years war"
in "fighting to protect" since it went UNresolved from
1979 to 2003...

The issue has been resolved, old fellow, and implementation is in progress.

Look at 60 meters...ARRL "fought" to get FIVE
CHANNELS?

Don't let it keep you up nights, Leonard. You aren't able to access them.

It is all too apparent that you speak from preconceived notions and
haven't bothered to get involved.


Tsk, tsk, tsk. My "preconceived notions" are the
result of about 55 years of observation, talking to
many other radio amateurs, seeing/hearing what others
have to say, etc., etc.

You've been a bystander for 55 years. That doesn't make you an expert
on the ARRL. As far as your "talking to many other radio amateurs":
What do you mean "other radio amateurs". You aren't a radio amateur.



You want it to be different? Get in there and do the work to change

it.

Oh, that's too hard you say.


Tsk, tsk, tsk. Now you are getting a mite hostile.

ARRL is IN CONTROL of what the ARRL DOES...

Another in your series of masterful statements of the obvious, Len?
Who knew that the ARRL is in control of what it does?


...and, by
all the possible objective observation, the BoD acts
like they are the Elite who Know What Is Good For All
...because that is what the BoD likes.

You really have little idea how the ARRL works, Leonard. The ARRL Board
of Directors takes action. Members of each Division have input to their
Director. The Director's vote on any issue is not likely to please all.
If enough of the League members in any Division disagree with the votes
of their Director, they may vote him out.

Then you are just a parasite waiting for some
one else to do the work so you can benefit without having contributed.


Tsk, tsk, tsk. Now you ARE getting hostile!

Ooops, I forgot...the Elite KNOW What Is Good For
Everyone! All should OBEY the Elite...

How does the Elitist position of the ARRL "encourage"
anyone to enter amateur radio? Learn morse code?!?

Dee...I was WORKING IN HF 52 years ago and NEVER had
to know any morse code then, nor in all the years
that followed in my engineering career.


Then again, fifty-two years later and you still have no HF amateur radio
license. In fact, you have no amateur radio license of any kind.

In EVERY
other radio service in the USA, government included,
morse code is GOING or was NEVER CONSIDERED for ANY
communications. The ARRL still champions morse code
as the "requirement" for "working below 30 MHz" as
a radio amateur.

....and, as you've read many times before, thousands of radio amateurs
use morse daily. It seems not to matter to those ops that other
services aren't using more code.

Hello? Can you NOT recognize how OUTMODED the notion
of "requiring" morse code testing as a "qualification"
is?

It is obvious that large numbers of licensed hams do not recognize your
"facts".

Dave K8MN

Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:

Dee...I was WORKING IN HF 52 years ago and NEVER had
to know any morse code then, nor in all the years
that followed in my engineering career.


Then again, fifty-two years later and you still have no HF amateur
radio
license. In fact, you have no amateur radio license of any kind.

Actually, he has no license of ANY kind that allows him to access
HF, Parts 15 and 95 notwithstanding.

(His GROL does not allow him to access ANYthing without a
"STATION" license that specifies discreet channels, mode, exact power,
etc...In otherwords, he's just a radio mechanic)

In EVERY
other radio service in the USA, government included,
morse code is GOING or was NEVER CONSIDERED for ANY
communications. The ARRL still champions morse code
as the "requirement" for "working below 30 MHz" as
a radio amateur.

...and, as you've read many times before, thousands of radio amateurs

use morse daily. It seems not to matter to those ops that other
services aren't using more code.

What's with this creep?

This is about AMATEUR RADIO, Lennie...

Not the Radio Lemming Service.

Hello? Can you NOT recognize how OUTMODED the notion
of "requiring" morse code testing as a "qualification"
is?

It is obvious that large numbers of licensed hams do not recognize
your
"facts".

A unique point is noting that NCT numbers are dropping...Dropping
because they are upgrading to General and Extra faster than they are
coming in.

73

Steve, K4YZ

From: "bb" on Sun,May 8 2005 11:15 am

K=D8=88B wrote:
wrote

ARRL membership as of 31 December 2004 was 151,727.
The "individuals who are ARRL members" is given
as 138,127. Obvious discrepancy there. ARRL
does not clarify what seems to be a glaring error
in arithmetic...

No "discrepancy" exits; no "glaring error in arithmetic" exists.

QST circulation numbers will always be lower than ARRL membership
numbers
because multi-member households recieve a single copy of QST.

Sunuvagun!

QST circulation numbers will always be higher than ARRL membership
numbers because of library subscriptions and news stand sales.

To quote from the ARRL's own page in regards to the
"Publisher's Sworn Circulation Statement" on web page
www.arrl.org/ads/circ.html -

1. Average monthly paid circulation by type:
Association, individuals who are ARRL members 138,137
Subscribers, institutions such as libraries, etc. 816
Net single copy sales, radio stores, etc. 1,481
*includes 20,233 Life Members 140,434

Hans wants to escalate things to a Battle Royal when he feels
anyone has "wronged" the blessed ARRL...other than him. :-)

The total of Subscribers, institutions and net single copy
sales is 2,297. That corresponds to only 1.64% of the total
of 140,434. The total of 20,233 Life Members is far above
that. More importantly, there's NO statement on how many
households have more than one ARRL member so it is difficult
to quantify Hans' CLAIM of "wrongness." Hans wants himself
free of challenge.

Now, if Hans says "no discrepancy exists" or "no glaring
error in arithmetic exists," then IT DOESN'T EXIST!!!

Further, if Hans says you are "completely wrong," then you
ARE WRONG!!!

Them's the Laws in this here "Everyone Loves da ARRL"
newsgroup. Hans has spoken. Therefore it is SO. :-)

Reality is different. But, reality doesn't exist in here.

wrote:
From: "bb" on Sun,May 8 2005 11:15 am

Reality is different. But, reality doesn't exist in here.

Sure it does. we just can't get you and Brainless to come around
to it.

But we keep trying...

Steve, K4YZ

Dee Flint wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

If, as you state, *half the ARRL members are Techs* then what's the
point to this whole thread?? Or is it me again?

w3rv


If Hans is correct about the scarcity of Techs in the ARRL
membership, he
proposes a way to attract them is all. I simply indicated that his
original
premise may or may not be true. Thus it should be checked. I don't
know
what the numbers are. I simply thought I saw something on it but
haven't
checked it. It is my point of view that the ARRL ought to try to get
the
involvement of more hams of all classes.

I went for the actual numbers.

I tossed an e-mail msg at Dave Sumner requesting a breakdown of ARRL
memberships vs. their license classes which he came right back with.
The last time these numbers were pulled together in detail at HQ was in
August 1996 as reported in the February 1997 issue of QST. He added
"The proportions will not have changed dramatically since then."

Extras 38,852
Advanced 39,430
General 25,245
Tech Plus 22,634
Tech 24,021
Novice 2,627

Total members = 152,809

Total Techs = 46,655 or ~30% of the ARRL membership are Techs vs. ~50%
of all licensees. There's a shortfall of Techs within the membership
but certainly not any sort of "yawning gap" in the representation of
Techs at the ARRL (or vice versa) as Hans has implied.


Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

w3rv

wrote:
Dee Flint wrote:

Extras 38,852
Advanced 39,430
General 25,245
Tech Plus 22,634
Tech 24,021
Novice 2,627

Total members = 152,809

Total Techs = 46,655 or ~30% of the ARRL membership are Techs vs.
~50%
of all licensees. There's a shortfall of Techs within the membership
but certainly not any sort of "yawning gap" in the representation of
Techs at the ARRL (or vice versa) as Hans has implied.

If we throw out those Novices, which aren't any appreciable number,
then the percentages look like this:

Extras: 25.52%

Advanced: 25.91%

General: 16.25%

Techs: 30.65%

...or leave the Novices in...it only changes the percentages by
1/10th or thereabouts of a percent...

Nonetheless...The Techs DO comprise a significant membership base
in the ARRL...Enough to be a significant voting block if they wanted
to.

So why don't they?

Lennie and Brain contend that they are somehow a repressed subset
of the membership, yet there's not a single impediment to ANY person
with ANY specific interest in ARRL policies or programs from pushing
for changes in those programs and policies if they so choose.

If anything, we should be asking why are the Generals so
inequitably represented in the ARRL membership.

The ARRL is, afterall, a membership organization. If in this day
and age there's not been some major effort to organize a major change
to the ARRL's policies and programs, then apparently they ARE
representing the opinions of their demographic fairly evenly.

If there was such a disaffection for the ARRL, where's the
"alter-ARRL"...?!?!

73

Steve, K4YZ

wrote

1. Average monthly paid circulation by type:
Association, individuals who are ARRL members 138,137
Subscribers, institutions such as libraries, etc. 816
Net single copy sales, radio stores, etc. 1,481
*includes 20,233 Life Members 140,434

Simple addition It corresponds exactly with their claim of

"Average paid circulation for the six months ended December 31, 2004 = 140,434"

No "glaring error in arithmetic" that I can see!

More importantly, there's NO statement on how many
households have more than one ARRL member so it is difficult
to quantify Hans' CLAIM of "wrongness."

Not difficult to quantify at all, Len. From the same page you cut-and-pasted
from we see that "American Radio Relay League membership, December 31, 2004 =
151,727", and from your cut-and-paste we learn that 138,137 copies were mailed
to members (includes life members). Then by simple subtraction we can "quantify"
that 13,590 members did not receive their own copy of QST, ergo, there are
13,590 ARRL members who live in the same household with another member who DOES
receive a copy of QST.

Sunuvagun!

Reality doesn't care what Len believes.

ZBM2,

de Hans, K0HB