|
Past Gems from Candidate Carl
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 ..." 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." 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. Dave K8MN |
Dave:
Sounds to me, if those are Carl's words, he is right on... That is exactly what has went on, what has happened, and what the "old pharts" don't want to face up to, the truth... Why would anyone be shocked? John On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 05:44:49 +0000, Dave Heil wrote: 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 ..." 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." 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. Dave K8MN |
John Smith wrote: Dave: Sounds to me, if those are Carl's words, he is right on... That is exactly what has went on, what has happened, and what the "old pharts" don't want to face up to, the truth... Why would anyone be shocked? Indeedintersting that Dave should try to flame Carl with a ringing endorsement of Carl for director, were i living in the Atlandtic dision I might rush out and rejion just to vote for him, because of statements like that John On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 05:44:49 +0000, Dave Heil wrote: 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 ..." 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." 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. Dave K8MN |
Dave,
I *have* had strong differences of opinion with the ARRL BoD's policies in the past, particularly with respect to code testing, but the code test issue is essentially a dead issue now, since the NPRM makes the FCC's intent very clear and I simply don't see anyone presenting any new arguments for keeping code testing that the FCC hasn't already considered and rejected, let alone one that's rational and compelling. I disagree with the current form/implementation of the "regulation by bandplan" plan that has (virtually) everyone upset and have stated so quite publicly. I don't think it should go forward until it's fixed to the satisfaction of at least a significant majority, so yes, I still have differences of opinion with some of what's being done by the BoD - and I'm getting a tremendous amount of feedback that the membership does as well. "Dave Heil" wrote in message ink.net... Carl Stevenson 1997 Taking selective quotes in isolation and out of context can be misleading .... besides, my views have changed in some areas and I have learned to be less confrontational over the years since these relatively ancient quotes that you dredged up were posted (and, what has gone on in the relatively distant past in heated debates on usenet has never been indicative of my behavior on the air ...) "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 ..." Even Mr. Hollingsworth, I'm told, has refered to "BOFs" (bitter old farts). My comment about "deserving licenses today" refers to those who have never gotten past the tube stage and probably couldn't pass today's written tests. As you will see from my campaign statement, I strongly believe that the ARRL needs to provide much better and more extensive technical eductation programs, both for newcomers and as "refreshers" for long-time hams, so that we can inprove the general level of technical competence in our ranks. 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." Everywhere I go (clubs and hamfests), I'm getting a tremendous amount of feedback/input that members *widely* believe that the League's leadership IS out of touch, both with the membership and with many of the realities of today's world. (So I'm not alone in that view by ANY stretch of the imagination, which is one of my primary reasons for running. The other reason is that, after enjoying the benefits of ham radio for about 30 years, I'm at a point in my life where I'm in a position to give something back and I want to do so.) "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." This, if I recall correctly, was in response to the League's attempt to effectively codify bandplans. That's what I meant by "end-run regulation." Ed and I have long since gotten past my arguing with him and being suspicious that he was "just a party line man," and we are good friends (I'm also on good terms with Dave Sumner, Paul Rinaldo, and others at HQ and have been working with them on BPL). However, the basic thrust, while it could have been worded more "diplomatically," is still an issue and something that I'm also hearing from the membership as I visit clubs and hamfests. Carl Stevenson 1999: "I don't think we should establish 'protected class' setasides for ANY legacy technology ... " I have actually CHANGED that view to some extent ... I could support a reasonable "CW only" section at the bottom of each HF band. I do NOT support phone band expansion at the expense of CW and data. I believe that the "robot" stations that are causing harmful interference because they can't adequately detect and avoid ongoing operations (due largely to "hidden terminal" effects resulting fromt he nature of HF propagation) should NOT be allowed to go anywhere in the HF bands that data is allowed. There IS a difference between machine operation and human to human operation and the machines are not (at least yet) smart enough to "play nice(ly enough)." They should, therefore, be limited to reasonably-sized sub-bands. 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 am committed to working with whoever constitutes the BoD should I get elected. No, I will not be a "yes man." Yes, I will prod them for more progressive appoaches to many of the issues facing the League and ham radio in general. I will do that based on input from the membership, my technical expertise, my regulatory expertise, my proven track record of leadership and consensus-building in IEEE standards activites and other venues, and my dedication to a healthy, secure, and harmonious future for ham radio. Dave K8MN 73, Carl - wk3c http://home.ptd.net/~wk3c |
AOF:
Exactly, they have become so blinded to the sorry, decrepit, decayed and dying state of amateur radio--they have began to accept it as the norm! And, to resist the very change which would breath new life into the hobby and restore it to some dignity and status--high strangeness alright! They make the mistake of not seeing the insanity in their own words! Some things in life are just painful to observe, like a wino so addicted to the bottle he just continues on his course, oblivious to the reality of the mess and sorry state he depicts to other around him not sharing the same drunken visions--so are the "lotus blossom eaters" here... John On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 06:28:51 -0700, an_old_friend wrote: John Smith wrote: Dave: Sounds to me, if those are Carl's words, he is right on... That is exactly what has went on, what has happened, and what the "old pharts" don't want to face up to, the truth... Why would anyone be shocked? Indeedintersting that Dave should try to flame Carl with a ringing endorsement of Carl for director, were i living in the Atlandtic dision I might rush out and rejion just to vote for him, because of statements like that John On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 05:44:49 +0000, Dave Heil wrote: 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 ..." 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." 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. Dave K8MN |
Carl R. Stevenson wrote: Dave, cut Carl Stevenson 1999: "I don't think we should establish 'protected class' setasides for ANY legacy technology ... " I have actually CHANGED that view to some extent ... I could support a reasonable "CW only" section at the bottom of each HF band. I do NOT support phone band expansion at the expense of CW and data. I believe that the "robot" stations that are causing harmful interference because they can't adequately detect and avoid ongoing operations (due largely to "hidden terminal" effects resulting fromt he nature of HF propagation) should NOT be allowed to go anywhere in the HF bands that data is allowed. There IS a difference between machine operation and human to human operation and the machines are not (at least yet) smart enough to "play nice(ly enough)." They should, therefore, be limited to reasonably-sized sub-bands. Carl carefull there don't you know you are not allow to change your mind ;) 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 am committed to working with whoever constitutes the BoD should I get elected. No, I will not be a "yes man." Yes, I will prod them for more progressive appoaches to many of the issues facing the League and ham radio in general. I will do that based on input from the membership, my technical expertise, my regulatory expertise, my proven track record of leadership and consensus-building in IEEE standards activites and other venues, and my dedication to a healthy, secure, and harmonious future for ham radio. Dave K8MN 73, Carl - wk3c http://home.ptd.net/~wk3c |
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 - |
Mike:
No one should ever be confused by the term "old phart", or any derivative of that terms' meaning. At ~55 I AM AN OLD PHART! But, perhaps there is fudge room" till 60, ask a teenager and 35+ is an old phart, ask an old phart and he will claim there ain't none (especially if he is the oldest-old phart--otherwise he just points at "the old guy!" grin) By 65+ you are past the concern of the world--if you are still attempting to maintain control, have a trophy wife on your arm, and find a viagra tab--you just look pathetic to anyone in the real world... 70 is ancient, 75-80 is dead, however some dead people are still animate, and even past 80! Science is working on prolonging lifespans, they need to work more on keeping 'em from looking like corpses! (I just love the guys with a rug stretched over their head--if they were wondering if I notice--I DO!) I may be accused of "being insensitive", I won't even consider arguments claiming I am in error... A good way to know you are just in the way and embarrassing yourself, and having others embarrassed for you, is when: You no longer are current and up-to-date, break into long boring stories of yesterday, and find younger people a bother when they are participating in your activity and especially when showing you up, and you fail to notice what a drain you are on the younger people about you... .... nothing gets better as you get older, and that's a fact! (well, except the younger women! grin) John On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 20:19:32 -0400, Mike Coslo wrote: 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 - |
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 - |
Dave Heil wrote: 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 ..." 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." 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. Dave K8MN Perhaps they'll try to stuff the ballot box so they don't have to welcome him. |
Dave Heil wrote: 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 was a tad surprised to see his candidacy announced, based on his somewhat negative casting of ARRL in the past. As, when I was ARRL Dakota Division Vice Director, and he sent this request to me..... "Now why don't you do us all a favor and take your lying, stagnated, ARRL apologist ass out of here ..." Perhaps a leopard can change his spots. dit dit de Hans, K0HB |
KØHB wrote:
Dave Heil wrote: 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 was a tad surprised to see his candidacy announced, based on his somewhat negative casting of ARRL in the past. As, when I was ARRL Dakota Division Vice Director, and he sent this request to me..... "Now why don't you do us all a favor and take your lying, stagnated, ARRL apologist ass out of here ..." Perhaps a leopard can change his spots. There's a distinct possibility that Carl is a new person. We'll find out through the passage of the time leading up to the election. All it would take to sink his boat would be a single "Howard Dean Moment" in responding to a hot button issue. I was referred to as a jackbooted thug, a Nazi and worse by him in the past. We were all treated to "beeper", "jumping through hoops", "hazing ritual", "electronic paintball wars" and the like. I have to admit though, that Carl's response to my recent posting of a few of his past quotes was quite diplomatic in tone. I understand that Carl is actively campaigning by visiting Atlantic Division clubs. If the leopard hasn't changed his spots, it would be nearly impossible for him to keep up a false front under, what is certain to be, intense questioning from some. The membership of the Atlantic Division will have a chance to learn about the views of the three candidates and that they'll make the best choice from the information available to them. Dave K8MN |
"KØHB" wrote in message oups.com... Dave Heil wrote: 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 was a tad surprised to see his candidacy announced, based on his somewhat negative casting of ARRL in the past. As, when I was ARRL Dakota Division Vice Director, and he sent this request to me..... "Now why don't you do us all a favor and take your lying, stagnated, ARRL apologist ass out of here ..." Perhaps a leopard can change his spots. dit dit de Hans, K0HB Or perhaps he decided to make changes from within. Dan/W4NTI |
K0HB:
I think carl is just trying to be nice, he just can't come right out and say the amateur community has degraded badly... in a perfect world, he could... John On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 09:33:08 -0700, KØHB wrote: Dave Heil wrote: 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 was a tad surprised to see his candidacy announced, based on his somewhat negative casting of ARRL in the past. As, when I was ARRL Dakota Division Vice Director, and he sent this request to me..... "Now why don't you do us all a favor and take your lying, stagnated, ARRL apologist ass out of here ..." Perhaps a leopard can change his spots. dit dit de Hans, K0HB |
K=D8HB wrote: Dave Heil wrote: 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 was a tad surprised to see his candidacy announced, based on his somewhat negative casting of ARRL in the past. As, when I was ARRL Dakota Division Vice Director, and he sent this request to me..... "Now why don't you do us all a favor and take your lying, stagnated, ARRL apologist ass out of here ..." But you stayed. Perhaps a leopard can change his spots. Why would it want to? |
Dave Heil wrote:
K=D8HB wrote: Dave Heil wrote: Carl's race for the Atlantic Division Directorship should be intere= sting at the very least. Should he actually get elected, I'm sure the seasoned veterans of the League will welcome him with open arms. Well, maybe. Interesting race - the incumbent isn't running again (due to health, I think) and there are two other candidates. I was a tad surprised to see his candidacy announced, based on his somewhat negative casting of ARRL in the past. I wasn't surprised at all. It's been clear for 5 years plus that FCC was sold on complete elimination of Element 1. NCI's work in the USA is about done. Logical next step for him. As, when I was ARRL Dakota Division Vice Director, and he sent this request to me..... "Now why don't you do us all a favor and take your lying, stagnated, ARRL apologist ass out of here ..." Perhaps a leopard can change his spots. Perhaps. There's a distinct possibility that Carl is a new person. We'll find out through the passage of the time leading up to the election. All it would take to sink his boat would be a single "Howard Dean Moment" in responding to a hot button issue. I was referred to as a jackbooted thug, a Nazi and worse by him in the past. Was it Carl who wrote that or Len Anderson? There was a time when their styles were quite similar. But Carl calmed down and cleaned up his act about 5 years ago. Maybe it was his exposure to W1RFI and some others. Maybe it was his anti-BPL work, maybe it was his upgrading to Extra and getting a 2x1 vanity call that caused the change. We were all treated to "beeper", "jumping through hoops", "hazing ritual", "electronic paintball wars" and the like. Those I do recall. But you have to look back several years to see that sort of stuff. I have to admit though, that Carl's response to my recent posting of a few of his past quotes was quite diplomatic in tone. I understand that Carl is actively campaigning by visiting Atlantic Division clubs. If the leopard hasn't changed his spots, it would be nearly impossible for him to keep up a false front under, what is certain to be, intense questioning from some. Who knows? Most hams don't read rrap. Most don't know about NCI either. The membership of the Atlantic Division will have a chance to learn about the views of the three candidates and that they'll make the best choice from the information available to them. Yes, we will. ;-) Maybe a lot of folks will join ARRL in order to vote for WK3C. Maybe a lot will join to vote against him. Maybe the whole Morse Code test issue isn't such a big deal to the majority of members in the Atlantic Division, or maybe they see it as a done deal and time to move along. In any event, we haven't seen any of those 'HD moments' in many a year. And that's a good thing. None of this is an endorsement for or against WK3C in his run for the Directorship. Just some observations. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
K4YZ wrote:
wrote: Dave Heil wrote: I was referred to as a jackbooted thug, a Nazi and worse by him in the past. Was it Carl who wrote that or Len Anderson? There was a time when their styles were quite similar. But Carl calmed down and cleaned up his act about 5 years ago. Maybe it was his exposure to W1RFI and some others. Maybe it was his anti-BPL work, maybe it was his upgrading to Extra and getting a 2x1 vanity call that caused the change. I am pretty sure that those epithets were strictly Lenniesque. I remember some heated exchanges with Carl, but never remember him falling back to Third Reich references. In either case, Good Luck to Carl...Stepping up to an elected post in ANY volunteer organization can be a very fulfilling experience. It must have been Len's work. I apologize to incorrectly attributing such statements to Carl. I searched and found only a couple of similar things which could be traced to Carl: 1996 "Discipline and blind acceptance of dogma are crucial if your idea of government is the jackbooted, indocrinate the youth, cram 'the way' down everyone's throats whether they like it or not because we say so" form of government ... that seems to be the pro-code ideal in many cases ..." 1997 to Mike Deignan: "That you pro-coders wish to limit participation in the debate to only incumbent, coded hams shows your EXTREME need for control and your EXTREME lack of good faith in these debates. Your tactics border on Fascist/Totalitarian_dictatorship (gee, that's a LOT like the ARRL BOD as I think about it ...) in nature, because you seek to eliminate/ignore all voices who dare utter opposing views." 1998 to me: "It would seem that your *facist* beliefs would preclude the possibility of freedom of choice in such matters when that choice would disagree with your personal preference, even though that choice would have virtually NO impact on you." and "Right Dave ... and everyone who has ever been accused of war crimes tried to use the excuse 'I was just following orders. It wasn't *MY* fault.' Wrong is wrong ... and your tacit support of the maintenance of tyranical Morseodism marks you amongst the guilty despite your protestations to the contrary." Additionally, I ran across a couple of Carl's past statements on the League and its officials: From late 1997: "What part of that surprises you??? Sumner is a weasel and all he cares about is begging for more money so he can make sure his paycheck doesn't bounce." and "I hope it made you feel better to 'vent' ... because I'll bet money that that was all the exercise (telling your ARRL BOD member how you felt) was good for ... I have YET to find one who gives a damn what anyone else thinks ... maybe one exists, but I sure haven't found him/her." and "I have yet to find a BOD member who has a good answer for ANYTHING, Gary." and "So he's a typical ARRL official ... backward and clueless." and "The BOD member I am talking about is EXACTLY like that ... he has NO vision whatsoever ... he comes across nice, and he's probably worked DXCC, but he is totally clueless about anything that is more than minimally technical and he has all of the leadership instincts of a sub-average lemming. But he's SO nice ... in a Bill_Clinton_slick_politican/really_smooth_used_car_salesman sort of way, so he keeps getting elected." Dave K8MN |
again and again perhaps you should indulge in the acholoic brevaage of
your choice and relax dave |
K4YZ wrote: In either case, Good Luck to Carl...Stepping up to an elected post in ANY volunteer organization can be a very fulfilling experience. As long as it involves a uniform. Hi! |
"KØHB" wrote in message oups.com... Dave Heil wrote: 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 was a tad surprised to see his candidacy announced, based on his somewhat negative casting of ARRL in the past. As, when I was ARRL Dakota Division Vice Director, and he sent this request to me..... "Now why don't you do us all a favor and take your lying, stagnated, ARRL apologist ass out of here ..." Hans, Please accept my public apology for my insult to you (a number of years past). Perhaps a leopard can change his spots. I have changed my view of the ARRL ... in fact, I became a Life Member. If you read my Candidate Statement (a 2 page .pdf) which is available via a link from my website at http://home.ptd.net/~wk3c, you'll see that I've come to believe that a strong and inclusive ARRL is important to the future of ham radio. I even have developed good relations with Dave Sumner, Ed Hare, and some of the other staffers and personally consider them to be a friends. Yes, my views towards the ARRL have changed *considerably* over the past years. 73, Carl - wk3c |
"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ... Hans, Please accept my public apology for my insult to you (a number of years past). Perhaps a leopard can change his spots. I have changed my view of the ARRL ... in fact, I became a Life Member. If you read my Candidate Statement (a 2 page .pdf) which is available via a link from my website at http://home.ptd.net/~wk3c, you'll see that I've come to believe that a strong and inclusive ARRL is important to the future of ham radio. I even have developed good relations with Dave Sumner, Ed Hare, and some of the other staffers and personally consider them to be a friends. Yes, my views towards the ARRL have changed *considerably* over the past years. 73, Carl - wk3c Thanks Carl. And thanks for the pleasant phone call this afternoon. Wish we could have talked longer, but we had just arrived at the MN State Fair, and needed the phone to coordinate arrival of two or three parties who were joining us there. I wish you success in your quest for a seat on the ARRL BoD, as whatever differences we've had in the past, we both passionately agree on the need to refurbish the tinkerer/experimenter/technical nature of our Amateur Radio Service. ARRL needs to lead that effort. Good luck es 73, de Hans, K0HB Grand Exhalted Liberator of the Fumes of Solder |
K=D8HB wrote: "Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ... Hans, Please accept my public apology for my insult to you (a number of years= past). Perhaps a leopard can change his spots. I have changed my view of the ARRL ... in fact, I became a Life Member. If you read my Candidate Statement (a 2 page .pdf) which is available v= ia a link from my website at http://home.ptd.net/~wk3c, you'll see that I've come to believe that a strong and inclusive ARRL is important to the future of ham radio. I even have developed good relations with Dave Sumner, Ed Hare, and som= e of the other staffers and personally consider them to be a friends. Yes, my views towards the ARRL have changed *considerably* over the past years. 73, Carl - wk3c Thanks Carl. And thanks for the pleasant phone call this afternoon. Wis= h we could have talked longer, but we had just arrived at the MN State Fair, a= nd needed the phone to coordinate arrival of two or three parties who were j= oining us there. I wish you success in your quest for a seat on the ARRL BoD, as whatever differences we've had in the past, we both passionately agree on the need= to refurbish the tinkerer/experimenter/technical nature of our Amateur Radio Service. ARRL needs to lead that effort. Good luck es 73, de Hans, K0HB Grand Exhalted Liberator of the Fumes of Solder I've got to get bifocals before I try to tinker with electronics anymore. But that's my problem. I do agree that tinkering is something that most amateurs can get behind, isn't controversial, and might close the abyss created by the Code Wars. What will the ARRL do with such an idea? That's anyones guess. bb |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:46 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com