Mike,

Have you seen my response to Dave's post? I believe I addressed the point
you seem most concerned about.
(and yes, there were days when we were ALL more than just a bit "wound up"
:-)

If you have further questions, you can either ask them here, in private
e-mail, or e-mail me a phone number and I'll be happy to call you for a
chat.


--
73,
Carl R. Stevenson - wk3c
Grid Square FN20fm
http://home.ptd.net/~wk3c
------------------------------------------------------
Life Member, ARRL
Life Member, QCWA (31424)
Member, TAPR
Member, AMSAT-NA
Member, LVARC (Lehigh Valley ARC)
Member, Lehigh County ARES/RACES
Fellow, The Radio Club of America
Senior Member, IEEE
Member, IEEE Standards Association
Chair, IEEE 802.22 WG on Wireless Regional Area Networks
------------------------------------------------------
"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
Dave Heil wrote:

I'll write my thoughts on these quotes below. Hopefully Carl and whoever
will take them in a constructive manner.


Carl Stevenson 1997

"We'd be better off if we could, instead, find a way to reeducate the
whining olde fartz ... those whose knowledge of radio is frozen in the
30s and 40s somewhere don't deserve their licenses today, no matter how
fast they can beep ..."

Ouch! That never should have been written. If a person doesn't like CW,
fine. But that never should have been written by any person who would
someday count those people among his/her constituents.

Better things could be written, such as: We would be better off if we
could engage the more experienced Hams in the concept of lifetime
education. Radio technology has come so far that it can only be
advantageous to strongly encourage, perhaps even require the knowledge of
new technology, as old and obsolete technology falls to the wayside.

Probably better than calling them olde fartz.


Carl Stevenson 1998:

"The majority of the opposition is, IMNSHO, based on people's
experiences with "frequency coordinators" who warehouse frequencies
for private repeaters for their cronies and an ARRL which is
totally out of touch with today's world, tries at every turn to
thwart progress in favor of the status quo of stagnancy and decay,
and could care less what the majority of hams feel or believe."


"In a word, 'bull****,' Ed ... it's just that the majority of hams who
are not ARRL members (and even many of us who ARE) know full-well how the
good-old-boy politics of the ARRL work and have seen this type of move
coming for some time."

" More BS, Ed ... the ARRL's sleazy attempt at end-run regulation
speaks volumes about the ARRL."

"I freely admit my bias against current (counting the past few decades)
ARRL policy and current 'leadership.' I am by no means a 'lone wolf'
in holding this opinion."


These aren't in enough context for me to make any judgment on.

Carl Stevenson 1999:

"I don't think we should establish 'protected class' setasides
for ANY legacy technology ... "


Carl's race for the Atlantic Division Directorship should be interesting
at the very least. Should he actually get elected, I'm sure the seasoned
veterans of the League will welcome him with open arms.


I do believe that a person is entitled to change their mind. This is of
course as long as there is adequate reasons given. Too many people have
been hamstrung by the idea that for a person to be consistent, they must
make up their mind early (usually by a party line) and to never never ever
change it.

So while it raises my interest that Carl has changed his mind on some
items, I am inclined to grant him the Benefit. I see nothing particularly
wrong with his present position.

That is that part. On the other hand, I am concerned with the "Olde Fartz"
business, as well as some discussions I have had with him here. Was he
just being a little wound up one day, or does he really support removing
the licenses of "whining olde fartz". And regarding elimination of Element
one, and the consequent endorsement of reduction of the test requirements,
after saying the "n" word, (never), do I take him at his word, or do I be
careful for (at best) strained interpretations of what was actually said.

There ya go, Carl. I'm not trying to be confrontational, just honest. I
might still support you, I suspect that you would do a good job, but I do
have some concerns.


- Mike KB3EIA -