From: "K=D8=88B" on May 8, 12:04 am

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.

Does the ARRL clearly state that? No?

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

Tsk, tsk, they ought to EXPLAIN that in those
Sworn Statements.

Sunuvagun!

Did your icehole melt again?

I thought your proposal had some merit. I just expressed
the thought that the ARRL just would NOT do such a
radical thing.

The ARRL laready has TWO Presidents...Sumner and Haynie.

Glaring error in arithmetic, Kindly Old Sir. There is only ONE
President of
ARRL, Jim Haynie. Dave Sumner is Secretary and CEO.

Yeah, riiiiight, super chief. :-)

Can a lowly Technician become PRESIDENT of the UNITED
STATES, super chief? :-)

I think Dee can answer for herself...except that she
doesn't want to associate with "lowly" unlicensed
(in the amateur radio service) persons who don't love
the League.

You think otherwise? Feel free. You ARE free to
express contempt for those who don't embrace your
ideas wholeheartedly. shrug

I would think you better serving the "amateur
community" by disciplining certain other extras
who make such terrible errors and personal insults
such as our "veteran of seven hostile actions."
He NOT be a good role-model to advertise U.S.
amateur radio.

Dee is an okay person. She's just a BELIEVER in
the gloriousness of the League which can do no
wrong. [i.e., a conditioned thinker]


The moving cursor prints, and having printed, blinks on.

Tsk, tsk, tsk. Cursors do NOT print, super chief.

Not in C++, not in Win32 APIs, not in anything.

Metaphors be with you, super chief...but don't get
another tattoo in Tattoine.

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

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

wrote


I would think you better serving the "amateur
community" by disciplining certain other extras
who make such terrible errors and personal insults
such as our "veteran of seven hostile actions."
He NOT be a good role-model to advertise U.S.
amateur radio.

Sorry, Kindly Old Sir, but Amateur Radio is a hobby for me. "Discipline" and
"role-model" aren't part of the lexicon. It's not the responsibility of Amateur
Radio to resolve his personality deficiencies, nor yours.

ZBM2,

de Hans, K0HB

wrote


Can a lowly Technician become PRESIDENT of the UNITED
STATES, super chief?

Certainly, super corporal, if they can capture enough votes. K7UGA ran, but
even with the support of Hillary Clinton, lost the race to a lowly non-licensed
short-term ex-sailor.

Sunuvagun.

de Hans, K0HB

"KØHB" wrote in message
link.net...

wrote


I would think you better serving the "amateur
community" by disciplining certain other extras
who make such terrible errors and personal insults
such as our "veteran of seven hostile actions."
He NOT be a good role-model to advertise U.S.
amateur radio.

Sorry, Kindly Old Sir, but Amateur Radio is a hobby for me. "Discipline"
and "role-model" aren't part of the lexicon. It's not the responsibility
of Amateur Radio to resolve his personality deficiencies, nor yours.

ZBM2,

de Hans, K0HB


Ok, call me dense or humor impaired but I don't get the "ZBM2".

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Dee Flint" wrote in message
...


Ok, call me dense or humor impaired but I don't get the "ZBM2".


No, I wouldn't call you any of those things, Dee.

"ZBM2" is the operating signal meaning "Place a competent operator on this
circuit."

Generally not considered complimentary.

73, de Hans, K0HB

ZBM2...

With most kindest regards...

K4YZ wrote:
bb wrote:
K4YZ wrote:
wrote:
From: "bb" on Thurs,May 5 2005 6:51 pm

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

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

etc

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." :-)

And so they still search for the answer.

So far, all I see is RATIONALIZATION for the
alleged efficacy of morse code. LOTS and LOTS
of old-style BS that went invalid around 1950
or so.

So far the only two people I see beating anyone up over it
is
you
and Brian. And no one is likely to want to talk to either of
you...in
ANY mode...

The rest of us moved on.
.
Looks like Steve can't take any more of Steve-Style Abuse. Poor
thing.

Wonder why he thinks the rest of us like it?

There's a small difference there, Brian.

When I make a mistake, I admit it.

Sometimes. Rarely. Eventually.

But in the meantime, you assume that the other person is wrong and take
great liberties in calling them names, accusing them of lying, question
their manhood, and sometimes even infer that they are homosexual or
pedophiles.

Then you discover that you were wrong, and apologize for making a teeny
weeny mistake. No harm, no foul, and never apologize for all of the
mayhem you cause.

You're a loser.

K=D8HB 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.

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

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

K4YZ wrote:
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?

Why should they? Do the Techs have some big problem with the League
which went over my head?

Lennie and Brain contend that they are somehow a repressed
subset
of the membership,

Those two "contend" a lotta things which are bass ackward and/or
off-the-wall. They're your turf, enjoy, I can't be bothered.

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.

Fixing that gross inequity will involve the creation of yet another
department at HQ based on the next PBI which we haven't seen yet.


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.

AMEN, that's the whole point and the only point which actually matters
in the context of this thread.

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

Been tried several times and they all died almost on the spot.


73

Steve, K4YZ

w3rv

From: on Mon,May 9 2005 1:32 pm

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



I went for the actual numbers.

That is to your credit. Applause.


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

None of us can work without REAL numbers to compare
and we are all stuck with ARRL's own numbers.

One problem is that August 1996 is about 8 1/2
years ago.

Okay, the "proportions will not have changed
'dramatically' since then" but 8 1/2 years is a
rather long time. In the dated March 2005 page
of ARRL's Sworn Statement, ARRL indicates a total
number of members as of 31 Dec 04 of 151,727 or
roughly a thousand LESS than the number in 1996.

Not "dramatic." :-)

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.

Not "dramatic?" :-)

While it was good that you contacted ARRL folks
direct, there's still the problem of trying to
connect 1996 numbers with 2005 numbers. Things
don't match for either "dramatic" or even mellow-
dramatic comparison. :-)

As an example, I quoted www.hamdata.com numbers
as of 7 May 2005 in here. On that day there were
a total of 723,570 amateur radio licensees (less
club calls). The total number of Technician class
licensees were, on that day, 350,455. That's
48.43 percent of the total. Compared to the 30.53
percent of Techs as ARRL members of only 30.53%
in August 1996, I'd say that comparison IS
"dramatic."

But, the "high rank" ham licensees are going to
bitch and moan and rationalize the be-jeezus out
of those numbers and do some remarkable "numbers"
while performing on this stage...a sort of
"American Idle" show. :-)

Let's take raw numbers, such as 46,655 ARRL
member Techs in 1996. Compare those to 350,455
Techs as of 7 May 05 of 350,455. That's a delta
of a "mere" 303,800!

A few years ago, I thought that it would be
"remarkable" if just a quarter of all licensees
would be Techs. NOW it is edging up to HALF of
ALL ham licensees!

ARRL bias, as revealed through the pages of QST,
is still towards "working DX on HF with CW."
QST still has a column of "The World Above 50
MHz," as if that was still a strange planet. :-)

wrote in message
oups.com...

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


Thanks. I appreciate your getting that info. Basically that puts it
somewhere in the middle of what I thought as compared to what Hans thought.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

So I guess the upshot of all this is that the ARRL is going along
swimmingly, everything is just great.

Since the League represents its members accurately, we better not do
anything to change it. It's all good.

The loss in membership since 1997 is just some kind of aberration, and
besides, good riddance - we don't need *those* types anyhow.

An almost 13 percent drop in membership since 1997 is *nothing* to
worry about.




- Mike KB3EIA -

wrote:
From: on Mon,May 9 2005 1:32 pm

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



I went for the actual numbers.

That is to your credit. Applause.

Nah, no applause Sweetums, it's just and old engineer's trick which
apparently isn't used much these days. "If you don't have the info
simply get off yer butt and ASK somebody who DOES have info."


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

None of us can work without REAL numbers to compare
and we are all stuck with ARRL's own numbers.

One problem is that August 1996 is about 8 1/2
years ago.

Okay, the "proportions will not have changed
'dramatically' since then" but 8 1/2 years is a
rather long time. In the dated March 2005 page
of ARRL's Sworn Statement, ARRL indicates a total
number of members as of 31 Dec 04 of 151,727 or
roughly a thousand LESS than the number in 1996.

Not "dramatic." :-)

Yes Sweetums, a lousy 0.7% drop in total membership in 8.5 years is not
a dramatic anything. In fact it indicates a rather comfortable level of
stability so all is well in Newington.


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.

Not "dramatic?" :-)

While it was good that you contacted ARRL folks
direct, there's still the problem of trying to
connect 1996 numbers with 2005 numbers. Things
don't match for either "dramatic" or even mellow-
dramatic comparison. :-)

As an example, I quoted www.hamdata.com numbers
as of 7 May 2005 in here. On that day there were
a total of 723,570 amateur radio licensees (less
club calls). The total number of Technician class
licensees were, on that day, 350,455. That's
48.43 percent of the total. Compared to the 30.53
percent of Techs as ARRL members of only 30.53%
in August 1996, I'd say that comparison IS
"dramatic."

But, the "high rank" ham licensees are going to
bitch and moan and rationalize the be-jeezus out
of those numbers and do some remarkable "numbers"
while performing on this stage...a sort of
"American Idle" show. :-)

Sweetums you silly old thing you blew it again, you missed the real
kicker in bush-league imbroglio. The gist of Hans' proposal being that
the League needs to reshuffle some of it's organization charts. His new
program would "fix" what he perceives as some huge lack of Techs'
interest in the ARRL and draw them into the Inner Sanctum. Welp, in the
end his perception ain't reality at all even with rough passes at rough
numbers yes? Fact is that ~17% of the pore downtrodden Techs are League
members whilst only around 13% of the "high-ranking" Generals are
members. Now what? Hmmm?

Let's take raw numbers, such as 46,655 ARRL
member Techs in 1996. Compare those to 350,455
Techs as of 7 May 05 of 350,455. That's a delta
of a "mere" 303,800!

Cut your smoke & mirrors act Sweetums, I did not just get off the boat.


A few years ago, I thought that it would be
"remarkable" if just a quarter of all licensees
would be Techs. NOW it is edging up to HALF of
ALL ham licensees!

Like I said, all is well in Newington. Hiram Percy would be delighted.

ARRL bias, as revealed through the pages of QST,
is still towards "working DX on HF with CW."
QST still has a column of "The World Above 50
MHz," as if that was still a strange planet. :-)

snore



w3rv

From: on 10 May 2005 09:11:19 -0700

wrote:
From: on Mon,May 9 2005 1:32 pm

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



One problem is that August 1996 is about 8 1/2
years ago.

Okay, the "proportions will not have changed
'dramatically' since then" but 8 1/2 years is a
rather long time. In the dated March 2005 page
of ARRL's Sworn Statement, ARRL indicates a total
number of members as of 31 Dec 04 of 151,727 or
roughly a thousand LESS than the number in 1996.

Not "dramatic." :-)

Yes Sweetums, a lousy 0.7% drop in total membership in 8.5 years is
not
a dramatic anything. In fact it indicates a rather comfortable level
of
stability so all is well in Newington.

Has ARRL membership EVER gotten as high as a
quarter of all licensed U.S. amateurs?

On "8.5 years is not a dramatic anything," that's
a rather gross fluff-off, "sweetums." A child who
begins public school at age 5 will be almost out
of Middle school in 8 1/2 years. Rather dramatic,
I'd say...but, since you are cheerleading the ARRL,
you will aerily dismiss it when it comes to the
League. :-)



Sweetums you silly old thing you blew it again, you missed the real
kicker in bush-league imbroglio.

"Blew" WHAT, you silly old beeper geriatric? :-)

The gist of Hans' proposal being that
the League needs to reshuffle some of it's organization charts.

Tsk. It's a LOT MORE than that, "sweetums."

The ARRL has to have its MINDSET realigned and
recalibrated to fit this new millennium. It can't
continue on using the now-very-old standards and
practices of the 1930s in amateur radio...such as
the bias in favor of morsemanship over everything
else...such as the bias in favor of featuring the
HF bands over all other bands.

His new
program would "fix" what he perceives as some huge lack of Techs'
interest in the ARRL and draw them into the Inner Sanctum.

As of 7 May 2005, the actual license numbers from
the FCC database, as shown on www.hamdata.com, show
that 48.43% of all U.S. amateur licensees are in
the Technician class category. [wait a few days
and the percentage will get higher... :-) ] At
the present rate of growth of Technicians...and at
the present rate of attrition in all the other
classes, the MAJORITY of U.S. amateur licensees
will be Technicians in another couple of years.

Regardless of not fitting YOUR perplexed paradigm
on What Ham Radio Should Be, the unalterable fact
is that the ARRL only pays lip-service and spins
"approval" of those "lower classes" insofar as
what the League thinks Ham Radio Should Be. If
you would get away from sniping at others not
sharing your concepts of hamdom, you could note
the "survival syndrome" exhibited by the ARRL and
its BoD...they just don't like CHANGE and want to
keep things cozy and comfy as THEY like it in the
hobby.

Welp, in the
end his perception ain't reality at all even with rough passes at
rough
numbers yes?

Using survey numbers of 1996 in the year 2005 isn't
even close to your "engineering way," "sweetums."
It certainly would NOT be good business sense.
Don't forget that the League gets millions out
of their PUBLISHING and product sale/resale end
of operations. [check out their Federal income
tax statements for the real numbers]

Fact is that ~17% of the pore downtrodden Techs are League
members whilst only around 13% of the "high-ranking" Generals are
members. Now what? Hmmm?

Cut your smoke & mirrors act, "sweetums." :-)

Let's take raw numbers, such as 46,655 ARRL
member Techs in 1996. Compare those to 350,455
Techs as of 7 May 05 of 350,455. That's a delta
of a "mere" 303,800!

Cut your smoke & mirrors act Sweetums, I did not just get off the
boat.

An aircraft carrier is NOT a "boat." :-)

Your glasses must have fallen in the water then,
since you can't understand that USING 8 1/2 year
old data to make your point (preceding) and now
saying that this data is no good...that only makes
you an intellectual hypocrite. Or a PCTA (they
are very similar in that regard).


Like I said, all is well in Newington. Hiram Percy would be delighted.


Tsk. You are still mumbling Maxims?

Maxim DIED over a half century ago, "sweetums."

ARRL membership is STILL LESS than a quarter of
all licensed U.S. amateurs. [21.1% to be more
exact]

ARRL bias, as revealed through the pages of QST,
is still towards "working DX on HF with CW."
QST still has a column of "The World Above 50
MHz," as if that was still a strange planet. :-)

snore

Poor baby...strain too much for your ancient bones?
Can't handle controversy? Think you are "better"
than the average ham hobbyist? Of course...you
are morse code tested!!! That makes you "superior!"

[superior...like the lake...all wet? :-) ]

Quit chomping them hoagies, old timer, they give
you gas and make you fall asleep in your rocker.

wrote:
From: on 10 May 2005 09:11:19 -0700

Yes Sweetums, a lousy 0.7% drop in total membership in 8.5 years is
not a dramatic anything. In fact it indicates a rather comfortable level
of stability so all is well in Newington.


Has ARRL membership EVER gotten as high as a
quarter of all licensed U.S. amateurs?

On "8.5 years is not a dramatic anything," that's
a rather gross fluff-off, "sweetums."

Agreed.


But my math says the drop is more like almost 13%.

Sources are the ARRL annual reports at:

http://www2.remote.arrl.org/announce/annualreport/


1997 (highest membership) 177,396

2003 (last year I have an annual report for) 154,545

22,851 members were lost in that time.

Wouldn't a .7 % drop be more like 1242 members leaving?

Hard to say that that sort of drop isn't dramatic!

- Mike KB3EIA -

Mike Coslo wrote:
wrote:
From: on 10 May 2005 09:11:19 -0700

Yes Sweetums, a lousy 0.7% drop in total membership in 8.5 years is
not a dramatic anything. In fact it indicates a rather comfortable
level
of stability so all is well in Newington.


Has ARRL membership EVER gotten as high as a
quarter of all licensed U.S. amateurs?

On "8.5 years is not a dramatic anything," that's
a rather gross fluff-off, "sweetums."

Agreed.


But my math says the drop is more like almost 13%.

Sources are the ARRL annual reports at:

http://www2.remote.arrl.org/announce/annualreport/


1997 (highest membership) 177,396

2003 (last year I have an annual report for) 154,545

22,851 members were lost in that time.

Wouldn't a .7 % drop be more like 1242 members leaving?

Hard to say that that sort of drop isn't dramatic!

- Mike KB3EIA -

Apologies for being repetitious here but sometimes that's what it takes
.. . When I asked Sumner for the by-class breakdown he wrote that the
last available data he has is from August *1996* as reported in the
February 1997 issue of QST.

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

Total members Aug. 1996 = 152,809

If you have a problem with this don't bore me with it, take it up with
Sumner.

w3rv

wrote:

Mike Coslo wrote:

wrote:

From: on 10 May 2005 09:11:19 -0700

Yes Sweetums, a lousy 0.7% drop in total membership in 8.5 years is
not a dramatic anything. In fact it indicates a rather comfortable

level

of stability so all is well in Newington.


Has ARRL membership EVER gotten as high as a
quarter of all licensed U.S. amateurs?

On "8.5 years is not a dramatic anything," that's
a rather gross fluff-off, "sweetums."

Agreed.


But my math says the drop is more like almost 13%.

Sources are the ARRL annual reports at:

http://www2.remote.arrl.org/announce/annualreport/


1997 (highest membership) 177,396

2003 (last year I have an annual report for) 154,545

22,851 members were lost in that time.

Wouldn't a .7 % drop be more like 1242 members leaving?

Hard to say that that sort of drop isn't dramatic!

- Mike KB3EIA -


Apologies for being repetitious here but sometimes that's what it takes
. . When I asked Sumner for the by-class breakdown he wrote that the
last available data he has is from August *1996* as reported in the
February 1997 issue of QST.

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

Total members Aug. 1996 = 152,809

If you have a problem with this don't bore me with it, take it up with
Sumner.

From the ARRL Annual Report for 1996 source

http://www.arrl.org/announce/annualreport/

On page 5, they announce the numbers:
175,023 members

The following year was the year that the ARRL experienced its all time
peak membership:

177,396.


So whether I'm boring you or not, you were the one bragging about your
smarts in going to "the source". I went to a source too. Mine aren't
broken down by class, but you would have to admit that 22,214 is a
significant difference when the total numbers are compared.

One of us is wrong with the numbers. Maybe your source made a mistake?
Or maybe *all* those annual reports were wrong. Which do you think more
likely?


- mike KB3EIA -

wrote:

On "8.5 years is not a dramatic anything," that's
a rather gross fluff-off, "sweetums." A child who
begins public school at age 5 will be almost out
of Middle school in 8 1/2 years. Rather dramatic,
I'd say...but, since you are cheerleading the ARRL,
you will aerily dismiss it when it comes to the
League.

And that same child is more likely to be an HF-licensed Radio
Amateur in that time frame than you are, Lennie.

Embarrassing, ain't it...

Steve, K4YZ

Michael Coslo wrote:
wrote:


last available data he has is from August *1996* as reported in the
February 1997 issue of QST.

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

Total members Aug. 1996 = 152,809

If you have a problem with this don't bore me with it, take it up
with
Sumner.

From the ARRL Annual Report for 1996 source

http://www.arrl.org/announce/annualreport/

On page 5, they announce the numbers:
175,023 members

The following year was the year that the ARRL experienced its all
time
peak membership:

177,396.


So whether I'm boring you or not, you were the one bragging about
your
smarts in going to "the source".

'Scuse me?? Where, exactly, did I brag about any of it? I simply fired
off another request for some info to a League management type and
Sumner responded as usual. Which is typical of the sorts of things he
and the rest of the folk at HQ get paid to do. I've done it any number
of times in the past and I expect I'll do it many more times in the
future. This is "bragging" on my part??


I went to a source too. Mine aren't
broken down by class, but you would have to admit that 22,214 is a
significant difference when the total numbers are compared.

Uh-huh. As if an 11% discrepancy in some arcane data in a hobby NG
actually matters.


One of us is wrong with the numbers.

Makes no sense.

Maybe your source made a mistake?
Or maybe *all* those annual reports were wrong. Which do you think
more
likely?

I don't "think about" such things Michael, I don't take offhand
potshots at whether or not a specfic dataset is right or wrong and
neither do the rest of us who are expected to responsibly process data
and crunch numbers. We chase down the data to it's source and
straighten out discrepancies by the numbers. Yeah, I know. "Not your
field". Obviously. Not my problem. His e-mail address is
.


- mike KB3EIA -

w3rv

From: "K4YZ" on May 11, 10:15 am

wrote [in response to W3RV]:

On "8.5 years is not a dramatic anything," that's
a rather gross fluff-off, "sweetums." A child who
begins public school at age 5 will be almost out
of Middle school in 8 1/2 years. Rather dramatic,
I'd say...but, since you are cheerleading the ARRL,
you will aerily dismiss it when it comes to the
League.

And that same child is more likely to be an HF-licensed Radio
Amateur in that time frame than you are, Lennie.

Embarrassing, ain't it...

Tsk, tsk, tsk. NO "embarrasment" at all...to me.
I've been a working PROFESSIONAL in radio-electronics
since 1952, passed a First 'Phone test in 1956, been
co-owner of a business radio in what is now called
Private Land Mobile Radio Service, and have legally
OPERATED on many MORE parts of the EM spectrum than
is permitted to just amateur radio licensees.

However, Robeson's post is just more of the puerile
junior-high school babbling by the Avenging Angle of
Dearth, Stebie Robeson, off on another tangent
of hatred, trying to mouth-off more abuse. Tsk.
It does indicate that the mindset of some amateur
extras hasn't gone much beyond age 13 1/2.

At question is NUMBER DATA on/from ARRL and the
DATE of such numbers. Kelly contends that an
8 1/2 year period is inconsequential to the
discussion. Coslo disagrees with that. I disagree
with Kelly's contention. Robeson can only jeer and
heckle the participants in that discussion, not
being able to think while in the midst of his
unstable emotional volatility.

Kelly thinks that the ARRL is "going along
swimingly," no problems there, everything just
fine.

Not the case in reality. Brakob realizes that and
so does Coslo. Note the statements on the
www.hamdata.com webpage in regards to statistics:
TECHNICIAN class license totals have been
increasing at a rate of 26 per day! [that's about
four times faster than the combined General and
Extra class increases of 6 per day]

On the license class totals, it is interesting to
compare (via Hamdata) those of 11 May 05 versus
those of two years prior:

2005 2003
Both Tech Classes - 350,566 348,749
All four others - 373,171 378,994
Total, all classes - 723,737 727,743

Percentage of Techs - 48.44 47.92

Comparison of Growth, 2005 v. 2003

Gain or Loss, Techs - +1,817
Gain or Loss, other four - -5,823

Gain or Loss, all licensees -4,006

It should be noted that the peak of U.S. amateur
radio license numbers was on 2 Jul 03 with a total
of 737,938 then (number of club calls not known).
The Hamdata statistics are derived automatically
by downloading the publicly-available FCC database
(massive in size) and sorting for classes.

The increase in both Technician classes is not
"dramatic" but it IS an increase and has NOT
stopped as some amateur extras claimed "would
happen" after the 12-year elapse from the 1991
creation of the (no-code-test) Technician class.
At 48.44 percent of ALL current licensees, that
IS a very large percentage and is constantly
approaching a MAJORITY (it hasn't stopped
increasing in 14 years).

It should be obvious (but is not to some closed
mindsets) that the "other four" classes (Novice,
General, Advanced, Extra) have had their totals
DROP in numbers. The "other four" all require
morse code testing. The no-longer-issued-new
Novice and Advanced classes dropped by 11,649 but
the General and Extra classes gained only 5,826.
The net change in the "other four" is -5,823.
The two-year growth in both Technician classes
is NOT enough to stem the 4,006 loss in licenses
overall in two years.

The (no-code-test) Technician class licensee is
FORBIDDEN to operate below 30 MHz. A Technician
Plus licensee is permitted below 30 MHz only if
they have taken a morse code test. Old paradigms
of "the majority of hams work in the HF bands" is
rapidly approaching oblivion. The "World Above
50 MHz" may soon be the majority-use spectrum in
amateur radio. The ARRL may not be tuned in to
that band...

K4YZ wrote:
wrote:

On "8.5 years is not a dramatic anything," that's
a rather gross fluff-off, "sweetums." A child who
begins public school at age 5 will be almost out
of Middle school in 8 1/2 years. Rather dramatic,
I'd say...but, since you are cheerleading the ARRL,
you will aerily dismiss it when it comes to the
League.

Sweetums you old dear why don't *you* get off your butt and chase down
more current data than I've been able to come up with. Then maybe you'd
be able to rub it in my face when it turns out that your newer by-class
ratios are "dramatically different" from the 8.5 year old data I
posted.

.. . . nah, you don't have the gonads . .


And that same child is more likely to be an HF-licensed Radio
Amateur in that time frame than you are, Lennie.

Embarrassing, ain't it...

Look at the bright side Steve, with Sweetums on the outside looking in
we have less spectrum pollution to deal with.


Steve, K4YZ

w3rv

From: on 11 May 2005 15:53:34 -0700

K4YZ wrote:
wrote:

On "8.5 years is not a dramatic anything," that's
a rather gross fluff-off, "sweetums." A child who
begins public school at age 5 will be almost out
of Middle school in 8 1/2 years. Rather dramatic,
I'd say...but, since you are cheerleading the ARRL,
you will aerily dismiss it when it comes to the
League.

Sweetums you old dear why don't *you* get off your butt and chase down

more current data than I've been able to come up with. Then maybe
you'd
be able to rub it in my face when it turns out that your newer
by-class
ratios are "dramatically different" from the 8.5 year old data I
posted.

Thank you, senior, but I'd prefer to get data direct
from the FCC...even if it has to be through Hamdata.
It is daily, it is honest, it isn't "massaged."

...and quit coming on to me with those endearing
terms like "sweetums." I'm straight. :-)


. . . nah, you don't have the gonads . .

"Gonads?" :-)

Kellie equates sex with Sumner?!? :-)

Kellie doesn't have the GUTS to admit he might have
made a mistake, "screwing around" with things he
apparently can't handle. :-)

Tsk. Kellie is looking for "love" in all the wrong
places...

[practice safe eating - use condiments...]



Look at the bright side Steve, with Sweetums on the outside looking in

we have less spectrum pollution to deal with.

Good grief, Kellie, you two already create more
POLLUTION than any one government agency can
control! :-)

You really CAN'T bother to consider the hobby for
anyone else but yourself, can you?

Hmmmm...a matched pair, those two...role-models for the
U.S. amateur extra class.

Say "Hi" to Dave S. next meeting you attend in the
"Residence Radio Club" he is the trustee for...

wrote:
Michael Coslo wrote:

wrote:



last available data he has is from August *1996* as reported in the
February 1997 issue of QST.

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

Total members Aug. 1996 = 152,809

If you have a problem with this don't bore me with it, take it up
with Sumner.

From the ARRL Annual Report for 1996 source

http://www.arrl.org/announce/annualreport/

On page 5, they announce the numbers:
175,023 members

The following year was the year that the ARRL experienced its all
time peak membership:

177,396.


So whether I'm boring you or not, you were the one bragging about

your

smarts in going to "the source".


'Scuse me?? Where, exactly, did I brag about any of it? I simply fired
off another request for some info to a League management type and
Sumner responded as usual. Which is typical of the sorts of things he
and the rest of the folk at HQ get paid to do. I've done it any number
of times in the past and I expect I'll do it many more times in the
future. This is "bragging" on my part??

You wrote:

* Nah, no applause Sweetums, it's just and old engineer's trick which
* apparently isn't used much these days. "If you don't have the info
* simply get off yer butt and ASK somebody who DOES have info."

You don't think that is sarcastic and bragging about how you were
astute enough to do a simple task that apparently is little used?


I went to a source too. Mine aren't
broken down by class, but you would have to admit that 22,214 is a
significant difference when the total numbers are compared.


Uh-huh. As if an 11% discrepancy in some arcane data in a hobby NG
actually matters.

If you read the reports, it doesn't appear that ARRL thinks the
membership numbers are arcane.

They are *very* much concerned about the membership drop. It isn't too
hard to figure out what happens to an organization that loses 13% of its
members in 6 years (1997-2003)





One of us is wrong with the numbers.


Makes no sense.


Maybe your source made a mistake?
Or maybe *all* those annual reports were wrong. Which do you think
more likely?


I don't "think about" such things Michael, I don't take offhand
potshots

What offhand potshot? Is reporting a different result a potshot?

at whether or not a specfic dataset is right or wrong and
neither do the rest of us who are expected to responsibly process data
and crunch numbers.

Do people who responsibly process data (as opposed to say me?...)
happily process data that is wrong?



We chase down the data to it's source and
straighten out discrepancies by the numbers.

Cool. I don't feel much need to chase my numbers down much further, as
the annual reports, while not unimpeachable, are an audited instrument.
Bad membership figures in an annual report would be bad indeed.



Yeah, I know. "Not your
field". Obviously.

I don't understand this at all. Are you arguing from authority?



Not my problem. His e-mail address is

No thanks.

I don't know why you're worked up about this. Show me the location of
my rudeness and "offhand potshot" behavior, and I'll be happy to
apologise here in the group.

- Mike KB3EIA -

ARRL Idiots wrote:
ARRL blunders have added up over the years, and many
ARRL blunders were the result of their superior-than-thou
attitude toward their members. It is no surprise the
pigeons are now coming home to roost.


One example. In the mid 80s, ARRL members in Hawaii
requested the ARRL to bulk air mail QST to Hawaii to avoid
the three month delays in receiving QST. Virtually all
magazine publishers bulk air mail their publications to Hawaii,
but not the ARRL. Their attitude was To Hell With their
Hawaii members. Hawaii ARRL members responded by canceling
their ARRL membership. Cost to the ARRL would have been
pennies, instead the ARRL permanently lost members, and those
former members continue to curse the ARRL in Hawaii to this
day.




And your source for this information is?

ARRL blunders have added up over the years, and many
ARRL blunders were the result of their superior-than-thou
attitude toward their members. It is no surprise the
pigeons are now coming home to roost.


One example. In the mid 80s, ARRL members in Hawaii
requested the ARRL to bulk air mail QST to Hawaii to avoid
the three month delays in receiving QST. Virtually all
magazine publishers bulk air mail their publications to Hawaii,
but not the ARRL. Their attitude was To Hell With their
Hawaii members. Hawaii ARRL members responded by canceling
their ARRL membership. Cost to the ARRL would have been
pennies, instead the ARRL permanently lost members, and those
former members continue to curse the ARRL in Hawaii to this
day.

On Thu, 12 May 2005 08:44:02 -0400, Cmd Buzz Corey wrote:

One example. In the mid 80s, ARRL members in Hawaii
requested the ARRL to bulk air mail QST to Hawaii to avoid
the three month delays in receiving QST. Virtually all
magazine publishers bulk air mail their publications to Hawaii,
but not the ARRL. Their attitude was To Hell With their
Hawaii members. Hawaii ARRL members responded by canceling
their ARRL membership. Cost to the ARRL would have been
pennies, instead the ARRL permanently lost members, and those
former members continue to curse the ARRL in Hawaii to this
day.

And your source for this information is?

Isn't it great that half-truths gets posted every day.

I (as well as others) were on the ARRL's Pacific Division committee
that looked into this. The problem was that CERTAIN Pacific Section
(Hawaii) members wanted their issues sent either by first-class mail
from the ststeside printing plant or alternatively bulk-mail from
the same source. In either case, they did not want to pay the
additional costs. "Pennies" it wasn't. By that time most magazines
were being printed on the Island but the very small circulation of
QST there didn't make that economical either. Bulk mail would have
required additonal sorting in Honolulu which was an additional
charge over and above the shipment.

The best recommendation was the bulk shipment with the members
paying the "offshore" rate to cover the additonal cost. This didn't
sit too well, and lots of "Hawaii IS in the United States" shouts
were heard. In the end, the members affected were given the choice
of status quo (surface mail at "basic" rate) or first-class airmail
delivery paying the extra charge. Some picked one, others picked
the other. Still others used that as an excuse to not pay ARRL dues
but still benefit from the regulatory work that the League did and
still does on behalf of all radio amateurs, members or not.

Case closed.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

"Phil Kane" wrote in message
ganews.com...
On Thu, 12 May 2005 08:44:02 -0400, Cmd Buzz Corey wrote:

One example. In the mid 80s, ARRL members in Hawaii
requested the ARRL to bulk air mail QST to Hawaii to avoid
the three month delays in receiving QST. Virtually all
magazine publishers bulk air mail their publications to Hawaii,
but not the ARRL. Their attitude was To Hell With their
Hawaii members. Hawaii ARRL members responded by canceling
their ARRL membership. Cost to the ARRL would have been
pennies, instead the ARRL permanently lost members, and those
former members continue to curse the ARRL in Hawaii to this
day.

And your source for this information is?

Isn't it great that half-truths gets posted every day.

I (as well as others) were on the ARRL's Pacific Division committee
that looked into this. The problem was that CERTAIN Pacific Section
(Hawaii) members wanted their issues sent either by first-class mail
from the ststeside printing plant or alternatively bulk-mail from
the same source. In either case, they did not want to pay the
additional costs. "Pennies" it wasn't. By that time most magazines
were being printed on the Island but the very small circulation of
QST there didn't make that economical either. Bulk mail would have
required additonal sorting in Honolulu which was an additional
charge over and above the shipment.

The best recommendation was the bulk shipment with the members
paying the "offshore" rate to cover the additonal cost. This didn't
sit too well, and lots of "Hawaii IS in the United States" shouts
were heard. In the end, the members affected were given the choice
of status quo (surface mail at "basic" rate) or first-class airmail
delivery paying the extra charge. Some picked one, others picked
the other. Still others used that as an excuse to not pay ARRL dues
but still benefit from the regulatory work that the League did and
still does on behalf of all radio amateurs, members or not.

Case closed.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane



BULL****! The ARRL did not want to even discuss the
matter. The ARRL's "solution" was to tell individual members
to pay for air mail delivery.

CASE CLOSE (now)

and nobody benefited from any "regulatory" work
more BULL****!

Results speak loudest. The league is an organization which is
rapidly fading into history, due to the very attitude you display
here. Let me spell it out for you:

A R R O G A N C E

CASE CLOSED

"Phil Kane" wrote in message
ganews.com...

Isn't it great that half-truths gets posted every day.

I (as well as others) were on the ARRL's
//remaining drivel flushed//


You show much aggression.
That is no way to win members for an organization.
A contrite approach would be more effective.



Dr Hambone