John Smith wrote:
Then your argument is that it is totally logical to claim to follow a
"religion" (such as the ARRL)

ARRL is not a religion. That claim is incorrect.

but yet you are fully in your rights to
remove such pages as are un-suitable to you--but still should be viewed
as logical as you begin picking and choosing exactly what is pertinent
and what is not and following those things in the first mentioned
category only?

Has nothing to do with me.

The claim was made about certain things being labeled abominations
by the Bible.

I point out that there are all sorts of things labeled abominations
by that same Bible, yet people who call themselves Christians
regularly do precisely those things (like eating pork and other
foods labeled unclean).

IOW, many Christians pick and choose which "Old Testament" abominations
to avoid, but then criticize others for not avoiding the same ones.

We also have Christians who claim the Bible to be literally true, and
insist that science agree with their literal interpretation. Yet they
don't seem to have read the very Book they want taken literally, for
it is full of contradictions *if taken literally*.

Hmmmm, interesting, just too bad we can't do that with the penal code...
or FCC rules and regulations for that matter... it would look more
"logical" to me then...

Those rules are created by humans, and can be changed by humans.

--

Personally I prefer the Book of Bokonon.

--

wrote in message
oups.com...
John Smith wrote:
bb:

Or, have they torn those pages out of the bible, much in the
same way
gays have torn out the pages calling homosexuality an
abomination?

Which pages of the Bible do we follow, John?

Consider the first chapters of Genesis, where two different
creation stories are told. Both of them cannot be literally
true.

Or read the story of Lot and his family's escape from Sodm and
Gomorrah. Not just the pillar of salt thing but his actions
towards his daughters and their actions towards him.

Abominations? Plenty of them in the Bible - like eating pork,
or any scavengers (that means lobster too), or even rabbits.

Who decides which abominations "modern Christians" have to avoid?

N2EY wrote:
"ARRL is not a religion. That claim is incorrect."

.... really, don't they mention "traditions" and manners of ethical and
moral behaviors an amateur should conduct themselves by?

If so, they have many of the traits of a religion... and many "ARRL
zealots" look to be just as dangerous as some "religious zealots"...
has scarred off a bunch of licenses from joining...

Warmest regards,
John
wrote in message
oups.com...
John Smith wrote:
Then your argument is that it is totally logical to claim to follow a
"religion" (such as the ARRL)

ARRL is not a religion. That claim is incorrect.

but yet you are fully in your rights to
remove such pages as are un-suitable to you--but still should be
viewed
as logical as you begin picking and choosing exactly what is
pertinent
and what is not and following those things in the first mentioned
category only?

Has nothing to do with me.

The claim was made about certain things being labeled abominations
by the Bible.

I point out that there are all sorts of things labeled abominations
by that same Bible, yet people who call themselves Christians
regularly do precisely those things (like eating pork and other
foods labeled unclean).

IOW, many Christians pick and choose which "Old Testament"
abominations
to avoid, but then criticize others for not avoiding the same ones.

We also have Christians who claim the Bible to be literally true, and
insist that science agree with their literal interpretation. Yet they
don't seem to have read the very Book they want taken literally, for
it is full of contradictions *if taken literally*.

Hmmmm, interesting, just too bad we can't do that with the penal
code...
or FCC rules and regulations for that matter... it would look more
"logical" to me then...

Those rules are created by humans, and can be changed by humans.

--

Personally I prefer the Book of Bokonon.

--

wrote in message
oups.com...
John Smith wrote:
bb:

Or, have they torn those pages out of the bible, much in the
same way
gays have torn out the pages calling homosexuality an
abomination?

Which pages of the Bible do we follow, John?

Consider the first chapters of Genesis, where two different
creation stories are told. Both of them cannot be literally
true.

Or read the story of Lot and his family's escape from Sodm and
Gomorrah. Not just the pillar of salt thing but his actions
towards his daughters and their actions towards him.

Abominations? Plenty of them in the Bible - like eating pork,
or any scavengers (that means lobster too), or even rabbits.

Who decides which abominations "modern Christians" have to avoid?

John Smith wrote:
N2EY wrote:
"ARRL is not a religion. That claim is incorrect."

... really, don't they mention "traditions" and manners of
ethical and
moral behaviors an amateur should conduct themselves by?

There's more to a religion than that.

If you consider any organization that mentions traditions and
ethical/moral behaviors that people should conduct themselves
by, then you consider all of the following to be "religions":

- Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts and similar organizations
- US Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard
- AMA, ANA, and similar organizations
- IEEE and similar organizations
- No-Code International and similar organizations


And many others.

If so, they have many of the traits of a religion...

So do all of the organizations listed above.

and many "ARRL
zealots" look to be just as dangerous as some "religious
zealots"...

That claim is incorrect.

has scarred off a bunch of licenses from joining...

IMHO, if someone is sacred off by the current license
requirements, they really aren't interested.

wrote in message
oups.com...
John Smith wrote:
Then your argument is that it is totally logical to claim to follow a
"religion" (such as the ARRL)

ARRL is not a religion. That claim is incorrect.

but yet you are fully in your rights to
remove such pages as are un-suitable to you--but still should be
viewed
as logical as you begin picking and choosing exactly what is
pertinent
and what is not and following those things in the first mentioned
category only?

Has nothing to do with me.

The claim was made about certain things being labeled abominations
by the Bible.

I point out that there are all sorts of things labeled abominations
by that same Bible, yet people who call themselves Christians
regularly do precisely those things (like eating pork and other
foods labeled unclean).

IOW, many Christians pick and choose which "Old Testament"
abominations
to avoid, but then criticize others for not avoiding the same ones.

We also have Christians who claim the Bible to be literally true, and
insist that science agree with their literal interpretation. Yet they
don't seem to have read the very Book they want taken literally, for
it is full of contradictions *if taken literally*.

Hmmmm, interesting, just too bad we can't do that with the penal
code...
or FCC rules and regulations for that matter... it would look more
"logical" to me then...

Those rules are created by humans, and can be changed by humans.

--

Personally I prefer the Book of Bokonon.

--

wrote in message
oups.com...
John Smith wrote:
bb:

Or, have they torn those pages out of the bible, much in the
same way
gays have torn out the pages calling homosexuality an
abomination?

Which pages of the Bible do we follow, John?

Consider the first chapters of Genesis, where two different
creation stories are told. Both of them cannot be literally
true.

Or read the story of Lot and his family's escape from Sodm and
Gomorrah. Not just the pillar of salt thing but his actions
towards his daughters and their actions towards him.

Abominations? Plenty of them in the Bible - like eating pork,
or any scavengers (that means lobster too), or even rabbits.

Who decides which abominations "modern Christians" have to avoid?

N2Ey:

I stand corrected, ARRL is NOT a valid religion...

Nope, more of a cult actually--"Cult of the ARRL." grin

John

wrote in message
oups.com...
John Smith wrote:
N2EY wrote:
"ARRL is not a religion. That claim is incorrect."

... really, don't they mention "traditions" and manners of
ethical and
moral behaviors an amateur should conduct themselves by?

There's more to a religion than that.

If you consider any organization that mentions traditions and
ethical/moral behaviors that people should conduct themselves
by, then you consider all of the following to be "religions":

- Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts and similar organizations
- US Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard
- AMA, ANA, and similar organizations
- IEEE and similar organizations
- No-Code International and similar organizations


And many others.

If so, they have many of the traits of a religion...

So do all of the organizations listed above.

and many "ARRL
zealots" look to be just as dangerous as some "religious
zealots"...

That claim is incorrect.

has scarred off a bunch of licenses from joining...

IMHO, if someone is sacred off by the current license
requirements, they really aren't interested.

wrote in message
oups.com...
John Smith wrote:
Then your argument is that it is totally logical to claim to
follow a
"religion" (such as the ARRL)

ARRL is not a religion. That claim is incorrect.

but yet you are fully in your rights to
remove such pages as are un-suitable to you--but still should be
viewed
as logical as you begin picking and choosing exactly what is
pertinent
and what is not and following those things in the first mentioned
category only?

Has nothing to do with me.

The claim was made about certain things being labeled abominations
by the Bible.

I point out that there are all sorts of things labeled abominations
by that same Bible, yet people who call themselves Christians
regularly do precisely those things (like eating pork and other
foods labeled unclean).

IOW, many Christians pick and choose which "Old Testament"
abominations
to avoid, but then criticize others for not avoiding the same ones.

We also have Christians who claim the Bible to be literally true,
and
insist that science agree with their literal interpretation. Yet
they
don't seem to have read the very Book they want taken literally,
for
it is full of contradictions *if taken literally*.

Hmmmm, interesting, just too bad we can't do that with the penal
code...
or FCC rules and regulations for that matter... it would look more
"logical" to me then...

Those rules are created by humans, and can be changed by humans.

--

Personally I prefer the Book of Bokonon.

--

wrote in message
oups.com...
John Smith wrote:
bb:

Or, have they torn those pages out of the bible, much in the
same way
gays have torn out the pages calling homosexuality an
abomination?

Which pages of the Bible do we follow, John?

Consider the first chapters of Genesis, where two different
creation stories are told. Both of them cannot be literally
true.

Or read the story of Lot and his family's escape from Sodm and
Gomorrah. Not just the pillar of salt thing but his actions
towards his daughters and their actions towards him.

Abominations? Plenty of them in the Bible - like eating pork,
or any scavengers (that means lobster too), or even rabbits.

Who decides which abominations "modern Christians" have to
avoid?

John Smith wrote:
N2Ey:

I stand corrected, ARRL is NOT a valid religion...

Nope, more of a cult actually--"Cult of the ARRL." grin

Then the following are all cults, too:

- Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts and similar organizations
- US Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard
- AMA, ANA, and similar organizations
- IEEE and similar organizations
- No-Code International and similar organizations

And many others.

I think most of those groups progressive and open to change--this alone
would make classification as a cult difficult...

However, the ARRL with un-moving devotion to its "principles" and the
staunch "unwillingness" to change is what makes it more appropriate to
such classification... rather bizarre really--when at its core is
technology--and a technology which is RAPIDLY changing and adapting to
new discoveries, methods, devices, etc...

"new" and "remarkable" become "old" and "common" in only a matter of
months in this field...

Warmest regards,
John

wrote in message
oups.com...
John Smith wrote:
N2Ey:

I stand corrected, ARRL is NOT a valid religion...

Nope, more of a cult actually--"Cult of the ARRL." grin

Then the following are all cults, too:

- Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts and similar organizations
- US Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard
- AMA, ANA, and similar organizations
- IEEE and similar organizations
- No-Code International and similar organizations

And many others.

John Smith wrote:
I think most of those groups progressive and open to change--this alone
would make classification as a cult difficult...

Try selling the NRA on the idea that the Second Amendment should be
repealed.

Try selling NCI on the idea that *some* code testing is OK.

However, the ARRL with un-moving devotion to its "principles" and the
staunch "unwillingness" to change is what makes it more appropriate to
such classification...

The ARRL is as "open to change" (if not more so) as any of the
organizations named.

Is devotion to principles a bad thing? Or are principles, traditions,
and
standards to be tossed aside merely because they're old?

rather bizarre really--when at its core is
technology--and a technology which is RAPIDLY changing and adapting to
new discoveries, methods, devices, etc...

Such as?

The ARRL has been pushing for a revision of the rules to classify
signals by bandwidth rather than content, and to free up old
technical limitations. What other group has put forth such a
proposal?

While I don't agree with all the proposed revisions, the general
concept is a valid one. Why should an FSK signal of 900 Hz bandwidth be
permitted on a frequency because it's RTTY, but an FSK signal of
500 Hz bandwidth be prohibited from the same frequency because it's
digitized voice?

US amateur radio is and has long been wide open for new discoveries,
methods, devices, etc.. Particularly on VHF/UHF, where there's lots of
bandwidth. You cannot blame the license requirements for lack of
innovation, because the requirements for full VHF/UHF privileges have
included no code test and only a minimal written test for 14+ years.

The real "cult" or "religion" to watch for is the mindset that all
change is good, new is better than old, ending is better than
mending, and similar marketing buzzphrases.

That mindset is geared to three goals:

- selling more product, regardless of whether it's really better
- attracting investment capital
- destroying the existing structure without an adequate replacement

The boom-dot-bust mess of 2000 proves the game doesn't last forever.

"new" and "remarkable" become "old" and "common" in only a matter of
months in this field...

Which field?

Radio broadcasting in the USA uses AM (developed more than a century
ago)
and FM stereo multiplex (developed a half century ago). Satellite radio
may
cut into their market but it's a long way from replacing standard
broadcasting.

TV broadcasting is only now beginning the widespread change to HDTV,
after a half-century of NTSC.

In any technology, there is usually rapid progress when the technology
is
new, then as the technology matures, the changes become more
evolutionary
than revolutionary.

Suppose FCC just dumps Element 1 tomorrow. Will we see a techno-
revolution in ham radio? Not likely - it didn't happen after the Tech
lost its code test.



wrote in message
oups.com...
John Smith wrote:
N2Ey:

I stand corrected, ARRL is NOT a valid religion...

Nope, more of a cult actually--"Cult of the ARRL." grin

Then the following are all cults, too:

- Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts and similar organizations
- US Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard
- AMA, ANA, and similar organizations
- IEEE and similar organizations
- No-Code International and similar organizations

And many others.